COLUMBIA  LIBRARIES  OFFSITE 

AVERY  FINE  ARTS  RESTRICTED 


AR01 392964 


^  i^orp  of  il^o  Court 
of(IontmonpIaaj&. 


0 


-C  •• 


7^ 


lEx  ICtbrtfi 


SEYMOUR    DURST 


fi?li 


-t '  'Tort  nteiiuf   ^m/it-rda-m-  of  Je  JAcrrJidtans 


"When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  hook 

Because  it  has  heen  said 
"Sver'thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


This  Edition  is  printed  from  type  and 
is  limited  to   Three   Hundred  Copies* 

No. 


HISTORY  OF  THE 

Court  of  Common   Pleas 

OF  THE 
CITY  AND    COUNTY    OF  NEW   YORK 

WITH 

FULL  REPORTS  OF  ALL 

IMPORTANT  PROCEEDINGS 

BY 

JAMES  WILTON  BROOKS,  LL.D. 

OF  THE  NEW  YORK  BAR 


NEW  YORK 

Published  by  Subscription 

1896 


(57 


COPYRIGHT  1896 

BY 

JAMES  WILTON  BROOKS 


PRESS    OF    WERNER,    SANFORD    &    CO.,     103    EAST    16TH    STREET,     NEW    YORK. 


PREFACE. 

During  1895  the  writer  contributed  a  number  of  articles  to  the 
New  York  press.  One  of  these  entitled  "End  of  the  Common 
Pleas,"  was  published  in  the  Sun  of  May  19th.  This  book  is  the 
sequence  of  that  article.  It  is  not  a  law  treatise.  The  decisions 
of  no  Court  have  been  better  reported  than  those  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  of  the  City  and  County  of  New  York.  It  treats  of 
the  personal  side  of  the  Court,  and  is  in  a  measure,  therefore, 
supplementary  to  the  Reports.  The  writer  may  have  erred  in 
dealing  so  little  with  the  many  interesting  trials,  decisions  and 
questions  of  law  which  have  arisen  and  have  been  adjudicated 
during  the  life  of  this  Court.  He  has  been  frequently  tempted 
also  to  include  such  stories  and  anecdotes  as  have  come  within  his 
knowledge,  and  they  have  been  many,  but  has  refrained  because 
he  wished  rather  to  produce  a  work  which  should  be  dignified  and 
in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  one  of  the  oldest,  if  not  the  oldest, 
Court  our  people  have  known. 

The  "Minutes"  are  gone  into  at  some  length,  because  the 
proceedings  covered  by  them  are  historical,  and  for  the  reason  that 
this  part  of  the  history  of  the  Court  has  nowhere  else  been 
printed. 

Sketches  of  all,  and  portraits  of  twenty-one  of  the  twenty-three 
Judges  identified  with  the  later  history  of  the  Court,  will  be  found 
within  these  covers.  There  are  also  portraits  of  many  whose 
names  appear  in  the  text.  Without  the  peculiar  experiences 
incident  to  the  collecting  of  biographical  data,  there  can  be  no 
conception  of  the  amount  of  labor  involved.  The  simple  note  in 
the  appendix  concerning  Judge  Inglis  gives  little  or  no  idea  of  the 
amount  of  time  and  inquiry  devoted  to  obtaining  the  material  for 
his  sketch,  and  yet  scarce  half  a  century  has  passed  since  he  sat 
on  the  bench. 

The  author  wishes  to  gratefully  acknowledge  the  great  assist- 


ance  rendered  to  him  by  Chief  Justice  Joseph  F.  Daly  and  by  the 
Associate  Judges  of  the  Court.  His  grateful  acknowledgments 
are  due  to  the  former  Chief  Justice  Charles  P.  Daly,  to  Judges 
George  C.  Barrett,  George  L.  Ingraham,  Frederick  W.  Loew, 
George  M.  Van  Hoesen,  to  Mr.  Nathaniel  Jarvis,  Jr. ,  and  to  the  rela- 
tives of  several  of  the  Judges  of  the  Court.  Their  aid  has  enabled 
him  to  obtain  data  not  otherwise  available,  and  this  is  especially 
true  in  regard  to  the  biographies  of  those  who  are  gone.  He  takes 
this  opportunity  also  to  particularly  thank  his  friend,  Mr.  James  E. 
Homans,  for  his  help  in  the  arranging  of  manuscript  and  reading 
of  proofs,  and  for  many  suggestions  of  value.  Most  of  the  portraits 
have  been  drawn  especially  for  this  volume  by  Mr.  B.  F.  William- 
son, and  others  are  reproduced  through  the  courtesy  of  the 
publishers  of  the  "  National  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography." 

The  work  which  the  Court  has  accomplished  has  now  become 
a  matter  of  history.  The  future  alone  will  determine  whether  the 
action  of  the  people,  through  their  delegates  in  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  1894,  and  subsequently  at  the  polls,  was  wise  or 
unwise.  The  change  has  been  brought  about,  so  to  speak,  not 
from  the  bottom  up,  but  from  the  top  downward.  No  popular 
demand  was  heard.  The  necessity  of  relieving  the  New  York 
Court  of  Appeals  from  its  enormous  pressure  of  work  was  the 
cause  of  the  consolidation  of  the  superior  local  Courts  with  the 
Supreme  Court.  The  immediate  result  is  the  increased  nimiber 
of  Judges  and  the  formation  of  the  Appellate  Divisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  which  not  only  hold  the  authority  of  the  former 
General  Terms,  but  by  reason  of  the  finality  of  their  decisions 
will  be  possessed  of  great  public  significance. 

James  Wilton  Brooks. 

New  York,  July  ist.  1896. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

The  Court  of  Common  Pleas  during  the  Dutch  Domination  9 

The  English  Period 16 

Later  History  of  the  Court , 22 

MINUTES    OF   THE   COURT. 

Impeachment  of  David  M.  Cowdrey 36 

Trial  of  John  M.  Bloodgood 37 

Trial  of  Henry  W.  Merritt 37 

Trial  of  Justice  Miln  Parker 40 

Trial  of  Justice  William  Wiley 41 

Trial  of  Justices  Matzel,  Parker  and  Ephraim  Stevens  .  .  43 

Complaints  against  Justices  Haskell  and  Drinker  ....  50 

Trial  of  Justice  William  W.  Drinker 53 

Trial  of  Justice  Patrick  G.  Duffy 57 

Trial  of  Justice  Patrick  Diwer 59 

biographical  sketches  of  the  judges. 

John  Treat  Irving 61 

Michael  Ulshoeffer 64 

Daniel  P.  Ingraham 68 

William  Inglis 70 

Charles  P.  Daly 77 

Lewis  B.  Woodruff 83 

John  R.  Brady 87 

Henry  Hilton 90 

Albert  Cardozo 94 

Hooper  C.  Van  Vorst 95 

George  C.  Barrett 97 

Frederick  W.  Loew 99 


Charles  H.  Van  Brunt 103 

Joseph  F.  Daly 105 

Hamilton  W.  Robinson 109 

Richard  L.  Larremore 112 

George  M.  Van  Hoesen 116 

Miles  Beach 119 

Henry  W.  Allen 121 

Henry  W.  Bookstaver 123 

Henry  Bischoff,  Jr 125 

Roger  A.  Pryor 127 

Leonard  A.  Giegerich 130 

New  Organization  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  1870    .   .  132 
Proceedings  on  the  Death  of  Judge  Hamilton  W.  Robinson, 

1879 139 

Proceedings  on  the  Retirement  of  Chief  Justice  Charles  P. 

Daly,  1885 159 

Proceedings  on  the  Presentation  of  a  Memorial  Tablet  of 

Judge  Hamilton  W.   Robinson,   1895 180 

Proceedings  on  the  Closing  of  the  Existence  of  the  Court  of 

Common  Pleas,  1895 185 

Appendix 239 


THE    COURT    OF    COMMON    PLEAS    DURING 
THE  DUTCH    DOMINATION. 

THE  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  founded  in  1686,  in 
the  City  of  New  York,  extended  in  1691  through- 
out the  State,  restricted  again  in  1846  to  the  City  of 
New  York,  and  finally  in  accordance  with  the  amended 
State  Constitution  of  1894,  passing  out  of  existence  on 
the  thirty-first  of  December,  1895,  was  the  oldest  judi- 
cial tribunal  in  the  State  of  New  York.  It  succeeded 
"  The  Worshipful  Court  of  the  Schout,  Burgomasters 
and  Schepens,"  which  was  established  in  1653,  and  ma)'- 
thus  be  said  to  have  had  a  continuous  existence  of  nearly 
two  centuries  and  a  half.  It  was  twice  as  old  as  the 
nation.  In  its  passing  away  may  be  seen  the  severance 
of  one  of  the  last  links  which  bound  our  present  to  the 
old  days  when  the  language  of  our  city  was  Dutch, 
when  its  Courts  were  Dutch,  and  when  its  law  came 
straight  from  Holland. 

Though  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  the  City 
and  County  of  New  York  was  not  established  till  towards 
the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  prior  judicial 
history  of  the  State  of  New  York  is  well  worth  a  sum- 
mary. 

No  provision  seems  to  have  been  made  for  several 
years  for  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  colony  es- 
tablished by  the  West  India  Company  in  1623,  on  Man- 
hattan   Island.       Presently,   however,    in    1626,    Peter 


Minuit,  the  first  Governor,  surrounded  himself  with  a 
council  of  five,  which  became  invested  with  all  powers, 
judicial,  legislative  and  executive.  An  official,  well 
known  in  Holland  as  the  "  Schout,"  was  attached  to 
this  body. 

The  Governor,  the  Schout  and  the  Council  were  sub- 
ject to  the  supervision  and  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the 
authorities  at  Amsterdam. 

The  Council  continued  to  administer  justice  during 
the  official  tenure  of  Minuit  and  of  his  successor,  Van 
Twiller,  a  period  of  eleven  years.  Its  records  have 
been  lost. 

Whatever  were  the  duties  of  the  Governor  and  his 
Council  of  Five,  there  can  be  little  doubt  but  that 
almost  everything  conceivable,  except  judicial  decision, 
was  entrusted  to  the  "  Schout  Fiscal."  He  combined 
in  himself  the  power  of  a  public  prosecutor  and  the  ex- 
ecutive duties  of  a  sheriff.  He  was  far  more  than  either 
or  both  these  functionaries  according  to  any  current 
understanding.  It  was  his  duty,  under  the  orders  of  the 
Governor's  Council,  to  arrest  and  arraign  in  behalf  of 
the  Company  all  persons  accused  of  crime ;  to  superin- 
tend the  trial  and  see  to  the  proper  carrying  out  of  the 
sentence. 

Such  was  the  unbiased  nature  of  this  primitive  Court, 
however,  that  the  Schout  must  note  all  evidence  for  as 
well  as  against  the  prisoner,  and  see  to  it  that  no  facts 
were  suppressed  on  either  side.  He  was  also  required  to 
keep  a  strict  account  of  all  information  taken  by  him, 
and  of  all  criminal  trials,  and  regularly  transmit  reports 
to  the  Company's  main  offices  in  Holland.  And  his 
duties  were  further  framed  so  as  to  make  him  the  pro- 


tector  and  custodian  of  all  prisoners,  whom  he  was 
obliged  at  the  earliest  opportunity,  to  bring  to  trial. 
Prisoners,  whether  innocent  or  guilty,  were  not  to  be 
allowed  to  languish  in  jail. 

His  duties  further  obliged  him  to  act  as  chief  of  po- 
lice, or  general  constable,  in  seeing  to  the  execution  of 
all  placards,  ordinances,  resolutions  and  regulations  of 
the  States  General,  as  well  in  Court  as  out  of  it. 

In  some  towns  of  Holland  the  Schout  was  the  chief 
officer  of  the  Board  of  Burgomasters.  He  convoked  all 
Courts,  but  took  no  further  part  in  the  proceedings  ex- 
cept to  count  the  votes.  Nor  had  he  any  voice  in  the 
deliberations,  unless  as  public  prosecutor,  when  he  was 
obliged  to  leave  the  bench  to  the  senior  burgomaster. 
He  was  an  officer  somewhat  analogous  to  the  speaker 
of  our  legislative  assemblies,  or  the  moderator  of  the 
"town  meeting"  in  the  good  old  days. 

In  1630  Patroon  Courts  were  established,  local  Courts 
where  the  Patroon  exercised  within  his  territory  unlimit- 
ed civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction.  The  Patroon  had  even 
power  of  life  and  death.  His  decisions,  however,  within 
certain  limits,  were  subject  to  an  appeal  to  the  Governor 
of  New  Amsterdam. 

Thus  matters  went  on  with  more  or  less  variation  un- 
til the  impetuous,  hot-tempered  but  forceful  Peter  Stuy- 
vesant  came  as  governor  in  1647.  Immediately  on  his 
arrival  he  established  a  Court  of  Justice  whose  jurisdic- 
tion was  certainly  broad  enough,  for  it  was  empowered 
to  decide  "all  cases  whatsoever,"  subject  only  to  the 
mild  restriction  of  practically  referring  everything  of 
any  importance  to  the  governor  for  his  approval.  Pop- 
ular discontent  with  this  tribunal  grew  apace,  and  out 


of  the  wrangle  between  the  governor  and  the  colonists, 
which  brought  about  a  number  of  trips  to  Holland,  cov- 
ered a  number  of  years  and  abounded  in  dramatic  inci- 
dents, grew  **  The  Worshipful  Court  of  the  Schout, 
Burgomaster  and  Schepens."  This  tribunal  consisted 
of  the  Schout,  four  Burgomasters  and  nine  Schepens. 

The  Burgomasters  took  turns  among  themselves, 
each  for  a  term  of  three  months  to  attend  at  the  City- 
Hall  for  the  despatch  of  public  business.  Their  office, 
like  that  of  the  Schout,  was  mainly  administrative. 
The  duties  of  the  Schepens  were  entirely  judicial, 
having  jurisdiction  of  both  civil  and  criminal  causes. 
The  three  orders  of  officers,  however,  formed  a 
*'  College,"  and  enacted  the  laws  and  ordinances  for  the 
city  somewhat,  likely,  after  the  ' '  General  Court  "  of  the 
Colony  of  Massachusetts,  and  were  known  as  a  body 
under  the  title  of  the  "  Lords  of  the  Court  of  the  City 
of  New  Amsterdam."  Such  a  "College"  was  pre- 
sided over  by  the  Schout  in  the  old  country,  but  in  New 
Amsterdam,  either  a  president  duly  chosen  or  the  senior 
Burgomaster  assumed  the  dignity. 

It  seems  really  remarkable  that  so  complicated  and 
imposing  an  institution  should  have  been  deemed 
essential  for  the  relatively  small  and  insignificant  City 
of  New  Amsterdam.  Nevertheless,  this  body  was 
really  an  instrument  of  peace  rather  than  of  strife. 

If  to-day  an  action  is  brought  before  our  judiciary,  it 
is  fought  as  it  were  inch  by  inch  by  the  opposing  coun- 
sel. The  judgment  when  obtained,  is  enforced  to  the 
uttermost  farthing.  The  cause  may  go  to  a  referee, 
but  his  duties  are  simply  those  as  it  were  of  an  umpire. 
Nor  does  our  law  make  any  account  of  the  defendant, 


*U^a/nSL^ 


Ml/hJouf 


unless  the  defendant  looks  out  for  himself. 
It  was  different  in  old  New  Amsterdam;  the  Court 
was  of  so  Arcadian  a  character,  so  utterly  pledged  to 
the  eccentric  notion  that  all  men  are  somehow  broth- 
ers, or  if  not  that  they  ought  to  be,  that  it  was  loath  to 
exercise  its  judicial  authority;  to  enforce  the  execution 
of  justice.  It  was  a  Court  of  conciliation,  a  begetter 
of  harmony,  which  from  its  very  pomposity  and  cere- 
monialism was  all  the  more  potent  as  authority  to  com- 
pel the  resumption  of  friendly  relations.  If  a  cause  were 
brought  before  it,  each  party  stated  his  case  to  the  best 
of  his  ability  and  then  the  judges  rendered  their  decision 
on  the  facts,  or  appointed  arbitrators  to  bring  the  oppo- 
nents together.  These  arbitrators  were  appointed  to 
review  the  matter  thoroughly  and  agree  upon  some 
basis  of  compromise  which  was  usually  accepted  by  both 
parties.  Says  Chief  Justice  Charles  P.  Daly,  in  his  His- 
tory of  the  Judicial  Tribunals  of  New  York,  from  1623 
to  1846  :  "  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  though  the 
amount  involved  was  frequently  considerable,  appeals 
to  the  Court  from  the  decision  of  the  arbitrators  were 
exceedingly  rare.  Indeed,  the  first  appeal  to  be  found 
upon  the  records  was  brought  by  a  stranger." 

If,  however,  the  opponents  differed  in  their  version  of 
facts,  they  were  put  under  oath  to  testify,  and  if  the 
discrepancy  still  remained,  witnesses  were  called  in,  affi- 
davits presented  or  depositions  taken,  which  were  duly 
presented  on  the  next  court  day. 

The  defendant  was  also,  like  the  female  sex  with  the 
English  common  law,  the  especial  *' favorite  "  of  the 
Court.  Court  was  held  at  least  every  two  weeks,  and 
frequently  every  week.     When  the  case  was  first  en- 

13 


tered  an  officer  known  as  the  Court  Messenger,  at  the 
request  of  the  one  aggrieved,  verbally  summoned  the 
defendant  to  appear  at  the  next  court  day.  If  the  de- 
fendant failed  to  appear  he  lost  the-right  to  make  any 
objection  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court,  and  incurred 
the  cost  of  the  sunimons.  Failing  to  appear  on  the  first 
court  day  thereafter,  he  was  again  summoned;  when, 
failing  to  appear,  he  incurred  additional  costs,  lost  the 
right  to  apply  for  adjournments  or  delays,  or  to  make  any 
**  dilatory  exceptions"  whatsoever.  But  the  Court  was 
still  long-suffering,  and  like  an  affectionate  parent  of  a 
phenominally  prodigal  child,  again  summoned,  and  be- 
sought him  to  look  after  his  own  personal  interests; 
although  in  failing  for  the  third  time  to  heed  the  kindl}'' 
admonitions,  he  lost  all  power  of  appeal  and  all  right  to 
review  the  case.  Yet  if  the  Court  really  believed  his  pres- 
ence essential  to  his  own  well-being,  as  well  as  to  the 
good  name  of  justice  in  the  colonj^,  a  fourth  citation 
might  be  issued  in  the  nature  of  an  arrest,  and  he  be 
**  haled"  before  the  august  assemblage  and  compelled 
to  defend  himself. 

It  was  customary  to  appear  on  the  first  citation.  If 
the  matter  involved  was  intricate,  or  it  was  difficult  to 
get  at  the  truth,  it  was  the  practice  to  refer  the  matter 
to  arbitrators,  who  were  always  instructed  to  bring 
about  a  reconciliation  if  they  could.  These  references 
were  frequent  upon  every  court  day  and,  in  fact,  the 
chief  business  of  the  Tribunal  was  in  acting  as  a  Court 
of  Conciliation. 

Then  the  arbitrators  went  to  work,  but  if  no  recon- 
ciliation could  be  effected,  the  case  was  again  brought 
to  Court  by  the  dissatisfied  party  and  the  final  decision 

14 


was  made.  When  judgment  was  rendered  for  a  sum  of 
money,  time  was  given  for  payment,  usually  fourteen 
days  for  the  discbarge  of  one-half,  and  the  remainder  to 
be  paid  within  a  month.  If  at  the  expiration  of  the 
time  the  debtor  had  not  paid,  the  Schout,  or  more  often 
the  Court  Messenger,  went  to  him,  exhibited  a 
copy  of  the  sentence  and  also  his  wand  of  office,  which 
was  a  bunch  of  thorns,  and  summoned  him  to  settle  the 
matter  within  twenty-four  hours.  If  the  debt  was  not 
liquidated,  a  second  visit  was  made,  still  another  twent)'- 
four  hours  were  allowed,  and  then  at  the  expiration  of 
the  forty-eight  hours,  the  delinquent's  movable  goods 
were  seized  and  after  an  allotted  time,  six  days,  were 
sold  at  public  auction. 

Greater  formalities  were  required  in  the  sale  of  real 
estate.  The  manner  of  selling  was  peculiar.  The  offi- 
cer lighted  a  candle ;  the  bidding  went  on  while  it  was 
burning;  he  who  had  offered  the  most  at  the  extinction 
of  the  candle  was  the  purchaser. 

The  Dutch  law,  though  on  the  whole  infinitely  supe- 
rior to  the  more  technical  and  artificial  system  intro- 
duced by  their  English  successors,  was  a  kind  of  irreg- 
ular mosaic,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  Governor 
and  his  Burgomaster  and  his  Schout  and  his  Schepens 
were  continually  in  hot  water. 


15 


THE  ENGLISH    PERIOD. 

In  1664  the  Colony  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  En- 
glish, and  while  the  gradual  development  of  the  legal 
procedure  during  the  period  from  1664  to  the  date  of 
the  Charter,  which  takes  its  name  from  Governor  Don- 
gan  and  which  was  granted  to  the  City  of  New  York  in 
1686,  is  extremely  interesting,  the  merest  statement 
of  facts  will  suffice. 

Established  in  the  City  of  New  York  in  1686,  a  Court 
of  Common  Pleas  was  created  in  each  county  through- 
out the  State  by  the  Act  of  1691.  The  judges  and  clerks 
were  in  general,  appointed  by  the  Governor,  and  held 
office  during  his  pleasure  or  so  long  as  their  own  be- 
havior was  good. 

The  Court  had  cognizance  in  all  actions,  real,  person- 
al and  mixed,  where  the  amount  involved  exceeded  five 
English  pounds.  Its  errors  were  corrected  in  the  first 
instance,  by  the  Supreme  Court,  to  which  appeals  were 
allowed  for  any  judgment  where  the  amount  involved 
exceeded  the  sum  of  twenty  English  pounds,  or  about 
one  hundred  dollars  of  our  money. 

The  Court  of  Common  Pleas  in  the  City  of  New  York 
was  known  for  many  years,  in  fact  until  182 1,  under  its 
original  Dutch  name,  and  was  called  "The  Mayor's 
Court."  Its  criminal  branch  was  known  as  "The 
Court  of  Sessions." 

Until  the  end  of  the  Dutch  domination,  and  even  long 


afterward,  the  governors  of  the  colony  counted  it  a  right 
to  preside  in  Court  and  to  order  the  affairs  of  justice, 
and  this  was  a  particular  embarrassment  of  the  cause, 
not  only  because  they  knew  no  law,  but  also  because 
some  of  them  seem  to  have  been  fitter  subjects  for  its 
discriminations  than  interpreters  of  its  principles.  In- 
deed, most  of  them  were  adventurers,  pure  and  simple ; 
men  whose  careers  had  been  "unfortunate"  on  the 
other  side,  and  who  had  come  to  the  New  World  to 
begin  again. 

In  addition  to  their  salary,  the  governors  claimed  and 
received  a  large  income  in  fees  or  perquisites  for  ar- 
ranging patents  or  grants  in  land,  and,  on  account  of 
this  malfeasance  the  Crown  was  constantly  defrauded, 
while  they,  its  servants,  set  worthy  examples  to  the 
ring-politicians  of  later  generations.  Yet  while  their 
understanding  of  the  law  was  extremely  "liberal," 
there  was  always  fear  of  that  dreadful  bogey  the  "  re- 
former, "  who  might  some  day  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
colonists  and  instigate  proceedings  in  the  name  of  the 
Crown  to  void  the  grants  thus  fraudulently  made.  This 
fear  was  the  real  upshot  of  the  almost  frantic  opposi- 
tion of  the  colonists  to  the  establishment  of  the  Court 
of  Chancery,  or  any  court  of  equity  whatsoever,  for  had 
some  wealthy  Knickerbocker  been  sued  to  make  a  test 
case,  it  is  probable  that  the  majority  would  speedilly 
have  found  themselves  sans  house,  sans  land,  sa?is 
patent,  satis  everything;  and  there  had  been  fewer  vast 
fortunes  to  accrue  from  New  York  real  estate  holdings. 

This  then  was  a  bond  of  sympathy  and  common  cause 
between  the  colonists  and  their  often  rascally  govern- 
ors, which  rendered  the  former  only  too  thankful  to 

17 


bear  any  forms  of  tyranny  rather  than  the  dread  assizes 
of  the  Court  of  Chancery.  None  the  less,  the  Court 
came,  remaining  during  many  generations ;  and  as  the 
colonists  had  evidently  feared,  the  governors  too  often 
filled  the  office  of  Chancellor. 

Some  of  the  colonial  governors  had  the  honesty  to 
acknowledge  their  ignorance  of  the  law  and  behave  ac- 
cordingly. Thus  John  Montgoraerie,  who  became  gov- 
ernor in  1728,  positively  declined  to  sit,  and  when  or- 
dered to  do  so  on  the  authority  of  the  Crown,  acquiesced 
with  all  unwillingness,  encouraging  the  learned  counsel 
on  either  side  by  informing  them  that  he  knew  nothing 
whatever  of  law,  but  would  be  pleased  to  hear  them  talk 
and  might  "  patch  up"  a  decision  sooner  or  later.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  he  gave  but  one  decree  and  issued  but 
three  orders,  with  the  help  of  his  counsel;  and  died  in 
1 731.  He  was  followed  by  several  persons  who  either 
from  their  great  learning  or  intense  ignorance,  even  of 
ignorance  itself,  rushed  in  where  their  predecessors  had 
feared  to  tread  and  rendered  decisions  at  haphazard, 
sometimes  to  the  consternation  of  the  worthy  counsel- 
lors and  occasionally  to  the  "  vindication  of  the  perse- 
cuted." 

So  matters  continued  with  more  or  less  regularity 
until  Sir  Charles  Hardy  became  governor  in  1755. 
Hardy  had  been  a  seaman  by  profession,  and  having 
been  knighted  for  some  service  or  other  to  the  mother 
country,  was  sent  to  New  York  Colony  to  enjoy  his 
laurels  in  quiet.  He  was  informad  on  arriving  that  it 
was  necessar}'  for  him  as  governor  to  sit  in  chancery ; 
and  having  heretofore  overcome  many  difficulties,  was 
nothing  daunted,  and  sat.     But  his  honest  heart   was 

18 


sorely  tried  by  the  broadside  of  demurrers  launched  at 
him  by  four  learned  counsellors.  "Gentlemen,"  he 
cried,  **  my  knowledge  relates  to  the  sea;  that  is  my 
sphere.  If  you  want  to  know  when  the  wind  and  tide 
will  suit  for  going  to  Sandy  Hook,  I  can  tell  you;  but 
what  can  the  captain  of  a  ship  know  about  demurrers  ? 
If  you  dispute  about  a  fact  I  can  look  into  the  deposi- 
tions and  perhaps  tell  you  who  has  the  best  of  it;  but  I 
know  nothing  of  your  points  of  law." 

Hardy  later  tried  to  hear  a  case  of  fact  only,  but 
failed  so  signally  that  he  called  in  the  three  justices  of 
the  Supreme  Court  to  assist  him ;  and  thereafter  they 
discharged  the  duties  of  Chancellor  for  him. 

One  of  the  governors  of  New  York,  Sir  Henry  Moore 
Bart,  who  was  appointed  executive  in  1765,  unfortu- 
nately died  in  1769,  leaving  a  number  of  patents  unex- 
ecuted to  the  total  value  in  commissions  of  something 
like  10,000  pounds.  None  more  thoroughly  appre- 
ciated the  opportunity  than  Cadwallader  Colden,  who 
had  through  several  administrations  exercised  the  office 
of  lieutenant-governor  and  was  conversant  with  the 
"duties"  of  the  executive  office.  He  at  once  assumed 
the  duties  of  governor  pro  tern.  With  pertinacious  in- 
dustry he  worked  literally  night  and  day  on  the  matter 
and  had  fina.lly  issued  the  last  patent. 

The  succeeding  governor,  John  Murray,  further  known 
by  the  title  of  Lord  Dunmore,  straightway  he  landed 
in  his  realm,  made  formal  demand  on  Colden  for  "a 
moiety  or  one  half  part  "  of  all  fees,  perquisites  and 
emoluments  that  had  accrued  during  his  year  as  acting 
governor,  and  was  of  course  refused. 

Dunmore,  however,  was  a  man  of  ready  expedients, 

19 


and  friendly  persuasion  having  failed,  proceeded  to  insti- 
tute proceedings  against  his  lieutenant  after  the  most 
approved  burlesque  fashion.  He  ordered  the  attorney 
general  to  file  a  bill  against  Golden  in  the  Court  of 
Chancery  where  the  governor  was  sole  judge,  and 
directed  that  it  should  be  in  the  name  of  the  Crown. 

Colden,  nevertheless,  was  not  at  all  intimidated  by 
these  drastic  measures,  but  deliberately  set  about  em- 
ploying coimsel  to  plead  his  case.  He  found  an  attor- 
ney, by  name  James  Duane,  subsequently  a  judge,  who 
was  sufficiently  emancipated  from  the  current  awe  and 
dread  of  those  in  authority,  and  a  good  lawyer  for  that 
day  when  good  lawyers  were  apparently  few,  to  argue 
his  case.  At  the  day  of  the  trial  Lord  Dunmore  took 
his  seat  in  the  capacity  of  Chancellor  and  despite  that 
Duane  showed  conclusively  in  his  argument  that  the 
suit  could  not  be  maintained,  would  allow  nothing,  not 
even  legal  principles  to  thwart  the  '*  rights  of  the 
Crown."  The  attorney-general  and  his  colleague. 
Smith,  the  historian  of  the  Court,  argued  so  ably  on  the 
other  side  as  to  impress  the  worthy  Colden  most  unfa- 
vorably. He  is  quoted  as  saying  of  Smith,  that  he  dis- 
played *'an  easiness  of  principles  that  enabled  him  to 
affirm,  deny  or  pervert  anything,  with  a  degree  of  con- 
fidence that  might  deceive  the  unwary." 

Even  Dunmore  seemed  to  have  considered  that  his 
(the  Crown's)  case  had  been  argued  too  well — been  over- 
argued,  in  fact — and  in  spite  of  his  inclination  to  reward 
the  talents  of  Smith,  found  himself  unexpectedly  taced 
with  the  unquestioned  principles  of  law  and  equity.  He 
pretended  to  consider  the  case  one  of  such  moment  as 
to  require  some  little  review  and  consideration,  appoint- 


ing  the  following  Thursday  for  the  rendering  of  his  de- 
cision. Thursday  came,  and  the  matter  was  adjourned 
a  fortnight.  Meanwhile,  he  and  his  advisers  busily 
consulted  law  and  precedent,  but  in  vain.  Then  doubt- 
less in  confidence  of  his  official  prestige  the  cause  was 
referred  to  the  four  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court.  They 
presently  unanimously  decided  that  Duane's  demurrer 
was  well  taken  and  that  the  suit  could  not  be  main- 
tained. 


21 


LATER  HISTORY  OF  THE  COURT. 

The  Mayor's  Court  was  continued  through  the  Colo- 
nial Period.  The  City  records  leave  it  in  doubt  as  to 
whether  the  Court  was  or  was  not  held  during  the  War 
of  the  Revolution. 

In  the  beginning  of  1784  James  Duane  was  appointed 
Mayor,  and  from  that  time  on,  there  is  no  break  in  the 
sittings  of  this  Court.  Mr.  Duane,  a  lawyer  by  profes- 
sion, who  as  we  have  seen  defended  Cadwallader  Col- 
den  in  the  attack  made  upon  him  by  Lord  Dunmore, 
had  acqured  a  large  practice  before  the  Revolution,  and 
during  that  period  had  served  as  a  member  of  the  Pro- 
vincial Congress  and  as  a  delegate  to  the  Continental 
Congress.  His  high  character  drew  into  his  Court  every 
lawyer  of  ability.  The  leading  practitioners  were,  for 
instance,  Alexander  Hamilton,  Aaron  Burr,  Col.  Troup, 
Edward  Livingston,  Brockholst  Livingston  (the  latter 
afterwards  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  York, 
and  from  1806  until  1823  one  of  the  Judiciary  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  Supreme  Court),  Egbert  Benson,  Morgan 
Lewis  and  Josiah  Ogden  Hoffman,  the  father  of  Ogden 
Hoffman,  who  was  Attorney  General  from  1795  to  1802, 
and  Associate  Justice  of  the  New  York  Supreme  Court 
from  its  creation  until  his  death,  men  whose  first  forensic 
effort  was  made  in  the  Mayor's  Court. 

Judge  Duane  presided  till  the  close  of  1789  when  he 
was  appointed  by  Washington  United  States  District 
Court  Judge. 


6/^^^ 


i^^<^^ 


By  the  Dongan  Charter  it  was  provided,  among  other 
matters,  that  the  Mayor,  the  Recorder  and  Aldermen,  or 
any  three  of  them,  of  whom  either  the  Mayor  or 
Recorder  were  required  to  be  one,  were  authorized  to 
hold  the  Mayor's  Court,  or  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 
It  was  presided  over  by  the  Mayor  and  Recorder 
alternately. 

During  the  following  thirty  years  and  more,  1789  to 
to  182 1,  the  list  of  Mayors  and  Recorders  who  sat  in 
this  Court  included  many  of  the  most  distinguished 
lawyers  of  the  State.  The  Mayors  were:  Richard 
Varick,  Edward  Livingston,  De  Witt  Clinton,  Marinus 
Willet,  Jacob  Radcliffe  and  Cadwallader  D.  Colden  ; 
and  the  Recorders  were  :  Samuel  Jones  (father  of  the 
late  Chief  Justice),  James  Kent,  Richard  Harrison, 
John  B.  Provoost,  Maturin  Livingston,  Pierre  C.  Van 
Wyck,  Josiah  Ogden  Hoffman,  Peter  A.  Jay  and  Richard 
Riker. 

While  Maturin  Livingston  was  Recorder,  Mayor 
Clinton  ceased,  perhaps  from  choice,  perhaps  from  lack 
of  time,  to  preside  in  the  Mayor's  Court,  and  from  that 
time  on  the  Recorder  sat  as  presiding  judge  until  182 1, 
when  from  the  fact  that  its  business  had  greatly  increased, 
and  that  the  Mayor  had  ceased  to  preside  in  it,  it  was  con- 
cluded that  the  name  Mayor's  Court,  no  longer  in  any 
sense  appropriate,  should  be  abandoned.  An  act  was 
prepared  by  John  Anthon,  then  the  most  prominent 
practitioner  at  the  bar,  and  was  passed  by  the  Legisla- 
ture, changing  the  name  to  the  ' '  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
of  the  City  of  New  York,"  and  the  office  of  * '  First  Judge  " 
was  created.  The  Governor  appointed  John  T.  Irving  as 
First  Judge.  The  Mayor,  Recorder  and  Aldermen  were 


still  authorized  to  sit  in  Court  as  formerly,  but  the  First 
Judge  was  empowered  to  hold  it  without  them,  and  it 
was  his  special  duty  to  hold  it.  The  leading  practition- 
ers before  him  were  :  John  Anthon^  Martin  S.  Wilkins, 
Elisha  W.  King,  John  T.  Mulligan,  Robert  Bogardus, 
Pierre  C.  Van  Wyck,  Thomas  Phoenix,  Joseph  D.  Fay, 
David  Graham,  Sr.,  Hugh  Maxwell,  John  Leveridge 
and  Wm.  M.  Price,  thoiigh  the  members  of  what  was 
then  known  as  the  senior  bar.  Thos.  Addis  Emmett, 
Peter  A.  Jay,  Peter  W.  Radcliffe,  Sam  M.  Hopkins, 
David  B.  Ogden,  Wm.  Slosson,  Wm.  Sampson  and 
others  appeared  frequently  in  the  Court  as  associate 
counsel  in  important  cases. 

In  1834  an  Associate  Judge  was  provided.  He  was 
vested  with  all  the  powers  of  the  First  Judge.  The  Gov- 
ernor appointed  Michael  Ulshoeffer.  His  standing  both 
at  the  bar  and  in  the  community  is  best  shown  by  the 
fact  that  he  had  already  served  the  people  as  City  At- 
torifey.  Corporation  Counsel,  and  as  member  of  Assem- 
bly, and  that  he  had  been  in  turn  a  vestryman  of  St. 
Mark's  and  of  Grace  churches,  two  of  the  most  influential 
congregations  m  the  City  of  New  York.  On  the  death  of 
Judge  Irving,  in  1838,  Judge  Ulshoeffer  was  appointed 
First  Judge,  which  office  he  held  till  his  retirement  in 
1848,  and  Daniel  P.  Ingraham  (the  father  of  Judge 
George  L.  Ingraham,  now  a  Justice  of  our  Supreme 
Court),  was  appointed  Associate  Judge. 

Meanwhile  (1839)  the  business  of  the  Court 
increased  so  rapidly  that  an  additional  judge,  vested 
with  all  the  powers  of  the  other  judges,  was  created,  and 
William  Inglis  was  appointed  as  an  Associate  Judge — 
thus  making  the   full   bench   of   The  Common  Pleas 

24 


consist  of  three  judges.  The  number  was  increased  to 
six  in  1870. 

In  1844  Chas.  P.  Daly,  then  only  27  years  of  age,  was 
appointed  in  the  place  of  Judge  Inglis. 

The  Constitution  of  1846  especially  excepted  from 
the  general  Judicial  reorganization  of  the  State,  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas  and  the  Superior  Court  of  the 
City  of  New  York. 

A  law  enacted  in  1847  provided,  however,  that  the 
judges  of  both  Courts  should  be  elected  by  the  people. 

All  the  existing  judges  (Ulshoeffer,  Daly  and  Ingra- 
ham)  of  the  Common  Pleas  were  elected  in  June,  1847. 
The  allotment  of  their  judicial  terms,  for,  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  law,  each  took  his  chances  in 
drawing  by  lot,  resulted  in  Judge  Ulshoeffer's  securing 
the  two-year.  Judge  Ingraham  the  four-year  and 
Judge  Daly  the  six-year  term. 

In  1849  Lewis  B.  Woodruff  was  elected  in  place  of 
Judge  Ulshoeffer;  and  in  1850  Judge  Ingraham  was 
chosen  First  Judge.  Judge  Ingraham  was  re-elected 
in  185 1,  as  was  also,  in  1853,  Judge  Daly. 

Their  successors  were:  John  R.  Brady  (1856-1869), 
Henry  Hilton  (1858-1863),  Albert  Cardozo  (1863- 
1868);  Hooper  C.  Van  Vorst  (1867-68);  Geo.  C.  Bar- 
rett (1868-69);  Frederick  W.  Loew  (1869-75);  Charles 
H.  Van  Brunt  (1870-84) ;  Hamilton  W.  Robinson  (1870- 
79);  Richard  L.  Larremore  (1870-90);  George  M.  Van 
Hoesen  (1876-90);  Henry  Wilder  Allen  (1884-91),  and 
Joseph  F.  Daly  (1870-96);  Miles  Beach  (1879-96); 
Henry  W.  Bookstaver  (1885-96);  Henry  Bischoff 
(1890-96);    Roger   A.   Pryor  (1890-96);    Leonard    A. 


25 


Giegerich  (1891-96),  who  constituted  the  last  Bench  of 
the  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 

There  have  been  since  182 1  but  twenty- three  judges, 
four  of  whom  served  as  ''  First  Judges,"  and  three, 
Judge  Chas.  P.  Daly,  Judge  Larremore  and  Judge 
Joseph  F.  Daly,  as  "Chief  Justices." 

Two  have  died  before  the  expiration  of  their  term. 
Judge  Robinson  in  1879  ^^^  J^^ge  Allen  in  1891. 
Judge  Allen  was  stricken  in  the  Court  House  as  he  was 
leaving  his  Court,  and  died  a  few  days  afterwards  in 
the  hospital. 

The  following  table  will  show  the  succession  of 
Judges  together  with  the  dates  of  their  elevation  to 
the  Bench: 


26 


COURT  OF  COMMON  PLEAS,  NEW   YORK. 

SUCCESSION  OF  JUDGES. 


I82I 

Irving. 

First  Judge  under  the  Act  of  1821,  when  the  Court  was 
changed   from    the  Mayor's   Court  to  the  Court  of 

1822 

1823 

Common  Pleas. 

1824 

1825 

1826 

1827 

1828 

I82Q 

1830 

I83I 

1832 

1833 

1834 

Ulshoeffer  Associate  Judge,  created  by  Act  of  1834. 

1835 

1836 

1837 

1838 

Ingraham. 

1839 

Inglis.      Additional  Associate  ;  Act  of  1839. 

1840 

I84I 

1842 

1843 

1844 

C  P.  Daly. 

1845 

1846 

1847 

1848 

1849 

Woodruff. 

i8'50 

1851 

1852 

1853 

1854 

1855 

1856 

Brady. 

1857 

1858 

Hilton. 

1859 

i860 

1861 

1862 

1863 

Cardozo. 

1864 

:^8S 

Three       Additional       Judges 

1867 

Van  Vorst. 

created    by   the   Constitu- 

1868 
1869 
1870 
1871 
1872 

Barrett. 

Loew. 

tion  of  i86q. 

Van  Brunt. 

Robinson 

J.  F.  Daly 

Larremore 

1873 

X874 

llVe 
1877 

VanHoesen 

1878 

'& 

Beach. 

1881 

1882 

1883 

1884 

Allen. 

1885 

Bookstaver 

1886 

1887 

1888 

i88g 
i8go 

Bischoff. 

Pryor. 

iS^i 

Giegerich. 

1892 

1893 

i8q4 

1895 

LENGTH  OF  SERVICE  OF  EACH  JUDGE  OF  THE  COURT  OF 
COMMON  PLEAS. 

Charles  P.  Daly 41  years. 

♦Joseph  F.  Daly 25  " 

D.  P.  Ingraham 20  " 

R.  L.  Larremore 20  " 

John  T.  Irving 17  " 

M.  Ulshoeffer 16  " 

♦Miles  Beach 16  " 

♦♦Charles  H.  Van  Brunt 14 

George  M.  Van  Hoesen 14  " 

John  R.  Brady 13  " 

♦H.  W.  Bookstaver 11  " 

H.  W.  Robinson 9  " 

Fred.  W.  Loew 7  " 

Henry  W.  Allen 7  " 

L.  B.  Woodruff 6  " 

♦Henry  Bischoff,  Jr 6  " 

♦Roger  A.  Pryor 6  " 

William  Inglis 5  " 

Henry  Hilton 5  " 

Albert  Cardozo 5  " 

♦L.  A.  Giegerich 5  " 

H.  C.  Van  Vorst i  " 

♦♦*  George  C.  Barrett i  " 


♦Still  on  the  Bench ;  transferred  to  the  Supreme  Court  by  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1894. 

♦♦Still  on  the  Bench  ;  elected  to  the  Supreme  Court  in  1883. 

*^+Still  on  the  Bench  ;  elected  to  the  Supreme  Court  in  1871. 

Judge  Larremore  resig-ned  on  account  of  illness  with 
eight  years  of  his  term  unfilled  and  Judge  Charles  P. 
Daly  was  retired  on  account  of  age  at  the  expiration  of 
his  sixth  consecutive  term  of  judicial  office. 

The  Court  has  been  noted  from  the  fact  that  its 
justices  have,  with  rare  exceptions,  been  eminent 
jurists,  and  that  every  noted  advocate  in  the  City  of 
New  York  has  appeared  at  its  bar. 

The  original  roll  of  the  Court  from  182 1  to  1848, 
during  which  period  every  aspirant  to  the  Bar  of  the 
City  of  New  York  had  first  to  be  admitted  to  practice 
in  the  Common  Pleas,  shows  almost  every  New  York 
name  which  was  prominent  at  that  period,  whether  in 
the  legal,  social  or  business  world.     In  those  days  every 

28 


would-be  lawyer  had  to  pass  several  examinations  be- 
fore he  was  admitted  to  full  practice. 

He  was  first  admitted  to  the  Common  Pleas  as  attor- 
ney at  law.  After  three  years  of  active  practice  he  ap- 
plied for  admittance  as  counsellor  at  law  to  the  Supreme 
Court.  He  had  also  to  pass  a  special  and  supposedly 
equally  thorough  examination  in  the  Court  of  Chancery. 

This  original  roll  contains  the  names  of  those  ad- 
mitted to  practice  law,  the  dates  of  their  admittance 
to  practice,  and  the  oaths  to  which  they  were  com- 
pelled to  subscribe.  The  first  was  of  course  the  usual 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  and  uphold  the  dignity 
of  the  Court. 

And  then  came  an  oath  indicative  of  the  times,  but 
of  interest  at  any  period,  the  duelling  oath,  which  reads 
as  follows : 

I, ,  do  Solemnly  Swear  that  I  have  not 

been  engaged  in  a  Duel  by  sending  or  accepting  a  Chal- 
lenge to  fight  a  Duel,  or  by  Fighting  a  Duel,  or  in  any 
other  manner  in  violation  of  the  act  entitled  "  An  Act 
to  Suppress  Duelling  "  since  the  first  day  of  July  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  six- 
teen, nor  will  I  be  so  concerned  directly  or  indirectly 
in  any  duel  during  the  continuance  of  the  said  Act  and 
while  an  Inhabitant  of  this  State. 

The  roll  includes  the  names  of  men  who  became  em- 
inent as  lawyers,  judges  or  statesmen,  with  the  year  of 
their  admittance  to  practice.* 

Among  these  occur,  in  1823,  Thomas  L.  Wells,  Sam- 
uel Verplanck,  Abraham  Ogden,  Jr.,  William  Betts. 


*As  the  original  roll  of  the  Court  is  far  too  long  for  publication  in  this 
volume,  a  selected  list  is  here  given  of  such  names  as  have  appeared  most 
prominent  or  familiar. 

29 


In  the  year  1824  appear  the  names  of  Judge  William 
Kent  and  Philip  Hamilton  and  D.  P.  Ingraham,  after- 
wards Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 

In  1825  appears  the  names  of  William  Inglis,  after- 
wards Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas ;  Francis 
Griffin  and  Gen.  John  A.  Dix,  afterwards  Governor  of 
New  York,  and  F.  Brockholst  Cutting,  and  E.  C.  Ben- 
edict. 

In  1826,  N.  Bowditch  Blunt,  afterwards  District  At- 
tome)^  and  Judge  Thomas  S.  Brady,  the  father  of  John 
R.  and  James  T.  Brady;  Philo  T.  Ruggles  and  Charles 
Edwards. 

In  1827,  D.  Graham,  Jr.,  Pierre  M.  Irving,  Charles 
A.  Clinton  and  Judge  T.  W.  Clerke,  and  Daniel  B.  Tal- 
madge. 

In  1828,  Judge  Benjamin  W.  Bonney,  Edward  Sand- 
ford  and  David  Dudley  Field. 

In  1829,  A.  D.  Russell,  Judge  John  A.  Lott,  John 
McKeon,  afterwards  District  Attorney,  and  Benjamin  D. 
Silliman,  who  is  at  this  writing  the  oldest  graduate  of 
Yale  College,  and  one  of  the  oldest  living  members  of 
the  New  York  Bar. 

In  1830,  Robert  H.  Morris,  afterwards  Mayor,  Re- 
corder and  Judge ;  Robert  R.  Lansing,  Peter  Wilson 
and  Hamilton  Fish,  afterwards  Governor  of  New  York, 
U.  S.  Senator  and  U.  S.  Secretary  of  State. 

In  1 83 1,  Edgar  S.  Van  Winkle  and  Judge  Henry  E. 
Davies,  the  father  of  Julian  T.  and  William  G.  Davies, 
both  well-known  members  of  the  living  bar. 

In  1832,  Alexander  Hamilton  and  Corporation 
Counsel  Robert  J.  Dillon. 

In  1833,  Albon  P.  Mann,  Judge  Henry  P.   Edwards 

30 


and  John  T.  Irving,  Jr. ,  and  Thomas  A.  Brady,  brother 
of  John  R.  and  James  T.  Brady,  and  Henry  C.  Murphy. 

In  1834,  Judge  William  Minot  Mitchell  and  Nelson 
Chase. 

In  1835,  James  T.  Brady,  Theodore  Sedgwick,  Judge 
William  H.  Leonard  and  Judge  Gilbert  M.  Speir,  C. 
J.  DeWitt  and  Edward  DeWitt. 

In  1836,  Judge  Joseph  S.  Bosworth,  Judge  Claudius 
L.  Monell  and  Andrew  Warner,  who  was  afterwards 
one  of  the  four  clerks  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas, 
and  is  now,  at  the  age  of  ninety,  the  president  of  the 
Institute  for  Savings  of  Merchant  Clerks. 

In  1837,  Horace  F.  Clark,  Luther  R.  Marsh,  Hiram 
Barney,  Augustus  Schell  and  Charles  E.  Butler. 

In  1838,  John  Jay,  John  W.  C.  Leveridge,  Judge 
John  W.  Edwards,  William  C.  Noyes  and  Benjamin  F. 
Butler,  the  father  of  William  Allen  Butler,  the  leader 
of  our  elder  bar,  and  grandfather  of  William  Allen  But- 
ler, Jr. ,  the  president  of  the  Lawyers'  Club  of  the  City 
of  New  York. 

In  1839,  Chas.  P.  Daly,  for  many  years  Judge,  First 
Judge  and  Chief  Justice  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas, 
and  Vice-Chancellor  Lewis  H.  Sandford. 

In  1840,  Recorder  James  M.  Smith,  Jr.,  Judge  Charles 
A.  Peabody  and  William  J.  Hoppin,  for  many  years 
secretary  of  our  legation  to  Great  Britain  and  Edward 
W.  Stoughton. 

In  1 84 1,  John  Riker  and  Henry  L.  Riker. 

In  1842,  William  T.  Horn,  John  R.  Brady,  afterwards 
Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  and  of  the  Su- 
preme Court;  Nelson  J.  Waterbury,  afterwards  Dis- 
trict Attorney,  and  Judge  Enoch  L.  Fancher. 

31 


In  1843,  John  E.  Burrill. 

In  1844,  Judge  Charles  A.  Rapallo,  Samuel  J.  Tilden, 
afterwards  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  York;  John 
E.  Devlin  and  Charles  Price. 

In  1845,  William  C.  Barrett,  Judge  Abraham  B.  Tap- 
pen,  Judge  Ogden  Hoffman,  Jr.,  John  J.  Townsend 
and  Henry  A.   Cram. 

In  1846,  Andrew  H.  Green,  Henry  Hilton,  after- 
wards Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas;  Judge 
Henry  P.  McGown,  James  W.  Gerard,  Jr.,  and  Henry 
Morrison. 

As  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  was  the  County  Court 
of  New  York  County,  it  had  exclusive  jurisdiction  in 
certain  actions. 

It  was  the  Court  of  Impeachment  for  municipal  and 
minor  judicial  officers.  Until  within  a  few  years  it  was 
the  only  Court  having  jurisdiction  in  cases  of  forfeited 
recognizances,  or  in  cases  where  bonds  when  confis- 
cated became  the  property  of  the  City  Treasury.  Until 
recently  it  was  the  only  Court  which  could  give  an  in- 
dividual the  legal  right  to  change  his  name. 

The  greater  part  of  lunacy  proceedings,  mechanic 
lien  litigations  and  insolvent  assignments  carne  before 
the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  It  was  also  the  Court 
where  contested  wills  were  tried  before  a  jury.  Its 
equity  powers  were  co-equal  with  those  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  In  connection  with  the  Supreme  and  Superior 
Courts,  nearly  all  of  the  naturalization  of  the  county 
was  done  in  it — only  a  small  percentage  of  certificates 
being  issued  by  the  United  States  Court.  Its  appellate 
powers  were  more  varied  than  those  of  any  New  York 
Court  excepting  the  Court  of  Appeals. 

32 


-^c/^^^^ 


The  Supreme  Court  heard  only  appeals  from  its  own 
and  from  the  Surrogate's  Court.  The  Superior  Court 
was  confined  to  appeals  from  its  own  decisions.  The 
Common  Pleas,  in  addition  to  the  appeals  from  its 
own  decisions,  passed  in  review  on  appeal,  such  judg- 
ments of  the  City  Court  and  the  District  Courts  of  New 
York  as  were  appealed.  There  are  six  judges  of  the 
City  Court  and  eleven  District  Court  Judges.  Legisla- 
tion is  often  inaugurated  in  the  lower  courts  which  keen- 
ly affect  the  general  public.  As  the  decisions  on  appeal 
of  the  Common  Pleas  were  final  it  determined  the  law, 
so  far  as  these  lower  courts  were  concerned,  on  all  mat- 
ters presenting  questions  not  distinctly  adjudicated  by 
the  court  of  last  resort. 

The  first  suits  in  the  Elevated  Railway  cases  were 
brought  in  this  Court.  The  foreclosure  of  the  little  spur 
built  by  the  first  believers  in  the  elevated  system,  which 
ran  along  9th  avenue,  through  that  part  of  the  city 
known  as  Chelsea,  near  the  Episcopal  Theological  Sem- 
inary, was  brought  in  the  Common  Pleas. 

Until  near  the  end  of  its  existence  the  Common  Pleas 
was  the  only  Court  where  one  might  apply  for  an 
"order"  or  permission  to  change  one's  name. 

Its  reports  show  no  end  of  queer  wishes  in  this  re- 
spect. One  gentleman  goes  at  great  length  to  state  his 
objection  to  his  own  and,  in  fact,  to  all  names,  and 
wishes  to  be  allowed  to  change  his  name  to  the  letter 
"A."  That  the  matter  was  not  to  be  laughed  at  is 
shown  by  a  long  opinion  by  the  Chief  Justice  denying 
the  application. 

From  182 1  to  1854  the  Clerk  of  New  York  County 
acted  as  Clerk  of  both  the  Supreme  Court  and  of  the 

33 


Court  of  Common  Pleas.  In  1854  an  act  was  passed 
creating  a  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  Judges  of  the  Court.  The  Judges  selected 
Andrew  Warner,  who  served  one  year.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Benjamin  H.  Jarvis,  who  served  one  year, 
and  from  then  to  1896,  when  the  Court  passed  out 
of  existence,  there  were  only  three  clerks, 
Nathaniel  Jarvis,  Jr. ,  Samuel  Jones  and  Alfred  Wag- 
staff,  and  all  were  members  of  the  New  York  Bar. 

Mr.  Warner  is  to-day  the  President  of  the  Institution 
for  the  Savings  of  Merchants*  Clerks.  Mr.  Jarvis,  after 
serving  for  over  a  third  of  a  century,  resigned  in  1889. 
Judge  Jones,  coming  of  a  family  of  lawyers,  several  of 
w^hom  were  on  the  Bench,  retired  in  1892.  Senator 
Wagstaff,  who  served  as  Clerk  from  1892  to  1896,  is  now 
the  Clerk  for  the  Appellate  Division  of  the  Supreme 
Court  for  the  First  Judicial  District  of  New  York. 

On  the  walls  of  what  was  the  General  Term  room  in 
the  Court  House,  may  yet  be  seen  the  portraits  of  Judge 
Ulshoeffer,  Robinson,  Brady,  Daniel  P.  Ingraham*  and 
Charles  P.  Daly.  The  adjoining  room  contains  an  alto 
relievo  of  Judge  Irving  and  a  bust  of  Thomas  Addis 
Emmett.  The  inscription  on  the  latter  tells  that  Mr. 
Emmett  died  ''among  these  benches,  within  these 
official  walls."  A  bust  of  Alexander  Hamilton  adorns 
the  furthermost  corner. 

The  decisions  of  the  Common  Pleas  since  1850  have 
been  reported  in  twenty-three  volumes,  four  of  which 
have  been  edited  by  E.  Delafield  Smith,  two  by  Judge 


*  The  portraits  of  Judges  Brady  and  Ingraham  have,  since  Jan.  ist,  1896, 
been  removed  to  the  rooms  of  the  Appellate  Division  of  the  Supreme 
Court. 

34 


Hilton  and  sixteen  by  Chief  Justice  Charles  P.  Daly. 
In  addition  to  these,  known  respectively  as  E.  D. 
Smith's  Reports,  Hilton's  Reports,  and  Daly's  Reports, 
other  decisions  are  to  be  found  in  the  voluminous 
Abbott's  Reports  (both  series  and  new  cases),  Howard's 
Practice  Reports,  The  New  York  State  Reporter,  The 
New  York  Supplement,  The  Miscellaneous  Reports, 
The  Civil  Procedure  Reports,  The  Weekly  Digest,  The 
Law  Bulletin,  and  The  New  York  Transcript,  The 
Daily  Law  Register  and  The  New  York  Law  Journal, 
the  last  three  being  successively  the  daily  official  papers 
of  the  county. 


3'i 


A  RESUME  OF  THE  MINUTES  OF  THE  COURT 

OF  COMMON  PLEAS  OF  THE  CITY  AND 

COUNTY  OF  NEW   YORK    SITTING 

AS   A    COUNTY    COURT   FOR 

SPECIAL  PURPOSES. 

THE  book  of  minutes  of  proceedings  by  the  Judges 
of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  outside  of  their 
ordinary  judicial  functions,  commences  with  an  entry 
of  June  2d,  1832,  recording  their  appointment  of  a 
District  Attorney  according  to  the  power  then  vested  in 
them.  The  Court  at  that  time  consisted  of  John  T. 
Irving,  First  Judge;  Walter  Bowne,  Mayor;  Richard 
Riker,  Recorder;  and  the  Aldermen  of  the  city,  and 
they  re-appointed  Ogden  Hoffman,  the  then  incumbent 
of  the  office. 

IMPEACHMENT    OF    DAVID    M.    COWDREY. 

The  Court  convened  again  on  January  26th,  1833,  ^^ 
try  David  M.  Cowdrey,  Clerk  to  one  of  the  Assistant  Jus- 
tices of  the  city,  for  official  misconduct.  On  the  second 
day  appointed  for  the  hearing  of  the  charges  there  were 
present  John  T.  Irving,  First  Judge;  and  Aldermen 
Cebra,  Sharpe,  Ferris,  Rhinelander,  Meigs,  John 
Palmer,  James  Palmer,  Mandeville,  Woodruff  and  Mur- 
ray. A  quorum  being  present  the  Court  proceeded 
with  the  trial.  Justice  Eber  Wheaton,  the  prosecutor, 
was  represented  by  Charles  O'Conor  as  counsel,  and 
the  accused,  David    M.    Cowdrey,    by  Francis  B.  Cut- 

36 


'T'Tfee^^SS:;;^^^ 


ting.  The  trial  occupied  seven  days.  Witnesses  were 
examined  and  the  Court,  having  advised  in  the  mat- 
ter, after  due  deliberation,  removed  Cowdrey  from  his 
office. 

APPOINTMENTS    FOR    DISTRICT    ATTORNEY. 

The  Court  was  next  convened  on  May  226.,  1835,  to 
appoint  a  District  Attorney.  The  First  Judge,  the  Re- 
corder and  ten  Aldermen  were  present(Labagh, Taylor, 
Benson,  Lamb,  Delamater,  Purdy,  Fickett,  Varian, 
Lovett  and  Nixon),  and  Thomas  Phoenix  w^as appointed. 

The  next  appointment  of  District  Attorney  was  made 
June  4th,  1838,  Daniel  P.  Ingraham  being  Associate 
Judge,  Aaron  Clarke,  Mayor,  Robert  H.  Morris,  Re- 
corder and  Benson,  Thomas,  Lynch  and  Thomas  G. 
Talmadge,  Aldermen.   James  R.  Whiting  was  appointed. 

TRIAL    OF    JUSTICE    JOHN    M.     BLOODGOOD. 

On  February  19th,  1839,  the  Court  was  convened  to 
try  John  M.  Bloodgood,  one  of  the  Special  Justices  of 
the  city,  upon  charges.  Michael  Ulshoeffer  was  then 
First  Judge,  Daniel  P.  Ingraham,  Associate.  The  Re- 
corder, the  Mayor  and  fourteen  Aldermen  were  pres- 
ent. George  F.  Talman  appeared  as  counsel  for  the 
prosecution,  while  Charles  O 'Conor,  Francis  B.  Cutting 
and  John  A.  Morrill  appeared  for  the  accused.  The 
charges  were  dismissed  for  want  of  verification  by  oath, 
and  as  deficient  in  specifications  sufficient  to  author- 
ize the  Court  to  proceed  thereon. 

TRIAL    OF    JUSTICE    HENRY    W.    MERRITT. 

The  next  official  tried  before  the  Court  was  Henry 
W.  Merritt,  a  Special  Justice,  and  the  Court  convened 

37 


for  the  purpose  on  April  ist,  1840,  with  Judges  Ulshoef- 
fer,  Ingraham  and  Inglis,  the  Mayor,  the  Recorder  and 
twelve  Aldermen  present.  The  District  Attorney, 
James  R.  Whiting,  appeared  for  the  prosecution  and 
Francis  B.  Cutting  and  Charles  O'Conor  for  the  accused, 
Mr.  Cutting  objected  to  the  charges  as  not  in  due  form. 
The  Court  adjourned  to  consider  the  question  and  sub- 
sequently decided  that  the  charges  were  sufficiently  au- 
thenticated to  put  the  accused  upon  his  defense.  The 
vote  upon  this  decision  was  as  follows :  In  favor  of  sus- 
taining the  charges,  the  Recorder,  Judge  Inglis  and 
seven  Aldermen.  Against  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges, 
Judges  Ulshoeffer  and  Ingraham  and  three  Aldermen. 
The  trial  was  ordered  to  proceed  on  April  7th,  but 
upon  that  day  Mr.  O'Conor  filed  a  plea  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Court  and  the  matter  was  adjourned  to  April 
8th,  when  the  plea  was  overruled.  The  accused  then 
filed  a  challenge  to  the  competency  of  the  Mayor  and  of 
the  Aldermen  of  the  city  to  proceed  or  act  as  judges  of 
the  Court  in  the  hearing  of  the  matter.  The  challenge 
was  overruled.  Whereupon  the  accused  filed  a  demur- 
rer to  the  charges.  The  demurrer  was  argued  at 
length  by  Mr.  Cutting,  the  District  Attorney,  Mr.  Whi- 
ting and  Mr.  O'Conor,  and  the  demurrer  was  sustained 
by  the  Court  with  leave  to  the  District  Attorney  to  re- 
new the  charges  amended  and  verified,  and  for  that 
purpose  the  Court  resolved  to  assemble  on  the  nth  of 
April.  On  that  date  charges  and  specifications  were 
again  presented  by  the  District  Attorney  against  Jus- 
tice Merritt  and  he  was  required  to  answer.  He  was 
represented  by  the  same  counsel,  who  renewed  their 
motion  to  set  aside  the  pleadings  for  irregularity,  their 

38 


plea  to  the  jurisdiction  and  their  challenge  to  the  com- 
petency of  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  to  act  as  judges, 
all  being  overruled.  The  accused  then  filed  exceptions 
to  the  first  and  second  charges  and  pleaded  not  guilty 
to  the  third  charge.  Judgment  was  given  in  his  favor 
to  his  demurrer  to  the  first  charge.  Argument  was  then 
heard  upon  the  demurrer  to  the  second  charge  and  this 
consumed  three  days,  ending  in  the  demurrer  being 
overruled,  one  Judge  and  four  Aldermen  voting  to  sus- 
tain the  demurrer  and  one  Judge  and  six  Aldermen  to 
overrule  it.  Judge  Ingraham  not  having  heard  the  argu- 
ments on  the  demurrer  to  the  second  charge  did  not  vote. 
The  trial  of  the  issue  upon  the  third  charge,  to  which  the 
accused  had  pleaded  not  guilty,  was  then  proceeded  with 
and  consumed  eleven  days,  eighty-one  witnesses  being 
sworn  and  examined.  The  cause  was  then  summed  up, 
Mr.  O' Conor  occupying  seven  and  one-half  hours  in 
his  address,  Mr  Cutting  four  and  one-half  hours,  and 
the  District  Attorney  three  and  one-half  hours  of  one 
day  and  the  whole  of  the  next.  The  Court  was  ad- 
journed on  account  of  the  illness  of  the  Recorder,  and 
from  time  to  time  until  June  9th,  1840,  when  judgment 
was  rendered  acquitting  the  accused  on  the  second 
charge,  the  Recorder  and  two  Aldermen  being  in  favor 
of  a  verdict  of  guilty,  and  the  three  Judges  and  two  Al- 
dermen voting  for  not  guilty.  As  to  the  third  charge, 
of  which  there  were  three  specifications,  the  Court  was 
divided  on  the  first  and  second  specifications,  the  Re- 
corder and  three  Aldermen  voting  for  guilty  and  the 
three  Judges  and  one  Alderman  voting  not  guilty.  As 
to  the  third  specification,  there  was  one  vote  for  guilty 
by  Alderman  Nash,  and  seven  votes  for   not  gnilty  by 

39 


the  three  Judges,  the  Recorder  and  three  Aldermen, 
and  the  decision  was  that  the  Court  being  thus  divided 
in  opinion  the  charges  be  dismissed. 

JAMES    R.    WHITING    APPOINTED     DISTRICT    ATTORNEY. 

The  Court  convened  on  May  17th,  1841,  to  appoint  a 
District  Attorney,  their  choice  falling  upon  James  R. 
Whiting,  he  receiving  on  the  first  ballot  thirteen  votes, 
and  on  division  being  called  for,  nineteen  votes  out  of 
twenty-four. 

A    PROTEST. 

A  protest  against  the  right  of  Associate  Justices  of 
the  General  Sessions  to  sit  in  the  Court,  signed  by 
eleven  of  the  Aldermen,  was  presented,  and  a  motion 
was  made  to  enter  it  upon  the  minutes,  which  was 
lost. 

TRIAL    OF    JUSTICE    MILN    PARKER. 

On  August  7th,  1 84 1,  the  Court  was  convened  to  try 
Miln  Parker,  a  Special  Justice,  upon  charges  and  specifi- 
cations. The  charges  presented  by  Isaac  J.  Wood, 
through  Abraham  D.  Russell,  as  counsel,  were  ordered 
to  be  served  on  the  accused  and  delivered  to  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney,  and  the  Clerk  w^as  directed  to  notify  the 
Judges  of  the  County  Court  to  attend  on  the  7  th  of  Sep- 
tember. On  the  last  named  day  the  Court  met,  the  Al- 
dermen sitting  as  members.  George  M.  Van  Cott  ap- 
peared as  counsel  for  Justice  Parker  and  was  granted 
until  the  iithinst.  to  plead  to  the  charges.  The  Dis- 
trict x\ttorney,  on  motion  of  counsel  for  the  prosecutor, 
was  requested  to  assist  in  conducting  the  prosecution. 
On  the  adjourned  day  the  Court  assembled,  the  District 

40 


Attorney  appearing-  with  the  attorney  for  the  prosecu- 
tion, and  Horace  Holden,  James  T.  Brady  and  D.  M. 
Van  Cott  appearing  as  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  accused. 
The  trial  occupied  nine  days  and  twenty  witnesses  were 
examined.  Edward  Sanford  appeared  on  the  third 
day  as  associate  counsel  for  the  prosecution.  The  sum- 
ming up  occupied  two  days.  Written  opinions  were 
delivered  by  Judge  Ingraham  and  the  Recorder  in  favor 
of  the  acquittal  of  the  accused  and  the  Court,  consisting 
of  the  three  Judges  of  the  Common  Pleas,  the  Recorder 
and  fourteen  Aldermen,  unanimously  dismissed  the 
charges,  all  the  members  voting  in  the  affirmative. 

TRIAL    OF    JUSTICE    WILLIAM    WILEY. 

On  January  loth,  1842,  the  County  Court  met 
to  consider  a  communication  received  from  the  Mayor 
enclosing  a  certificate  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Court  of 
Oyer  and  Terminer,  showing  that  William  Wiley, 
one  of  the  Assistant  Justices  of  the  city,  had  been  con- 
victed of  receiving  stolen  goods  with  knowledge.  The 
Court  requested  the  District  Attorney  to  make  charges 
against  the  Justice  *'  in  order  to  his  removal  from  office, 
unless  the  necessity  of  such  removal  is  dispensed  with 
by  the  resignation  of  said  Justice  being  accepted  by  the 
Common  Council."  On  the  adjourned  day,  January 
14th,  1842,  the  District  Attorney  appeared  and  Alder- 
man Campbell  made  a  motion  that  inasmuch  as  Justice 
Wiley  had  tendered  his  resignation  to  the  Common 
Council  and  it  was  in  the  power  of  that  body  to  accept 
it,  the  Court  should  adjourn  in  order  that  that  body  might 
act  on  the  same.  The  motion  was  lost.  The  District  At- 
torney then  made  the  charges  against  the  Justice  which 

41 


were  ordered  on  file.  A  copy  was  directed  to  be  served 
on  him  with  notice  to  appear  on  the  3d  of  February  fol- 
lowing, when  it  having  been  communicated  to  the 
Court  that  the  Common  Council  had  accepted  the  resig- 
nation of  the  Justice  and  had  appointed  a  successor,  it 
was  ordered  that   further  proceedings  be  discontinued. 

QUESTION     OF     INCLUDING    NAMES    OF     ASSOCIATE    JUDGES. 

On  July  26th,  1842,  the  Court  (as  the  County  Court 
of  New  York)  convened  to  consider  the  question 
whether  the  names  of  the  Associate  Judges  of  the 
General  Sessions  should  be  entered  on  the  minutes  of 
the  Court  as  Judges  thereof.  The  Mayor  objected. 
The  Recorder  moved  that  Judge  Lynch  be  heard  in 
support  of  the  motion.  Judge  Lynch  made  an  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  motion  and  was  followed  by  the 
Mayor  in  opposition.  Judge  Inglis  moved  that  the 
resolution  lie  on  the  table  to  enable  the  members  of  the 
Court  to  examine  the  subject,  and  the  Court  adjourned 
to  the  first  Monday  in  Septen>ber.  The  Mayor  re- 
quested the  mover  to  withdraw  his  motion,  which  being 
complied  with,  he  asked  for  what  precise  purpose 
an  order  had  been  made  in  the  Common  Pleas  conven- 
ing the  Court.  Judge  Inglis  replied  that  the  order  had 
been  made  pursuant  to  written  requests  signed  by  three 
of  the  Judges  in  behalf  of  the  thirteen  judges  of  the 
Court  without  stating  the  object.  An  adjournment  was 
taken  to  July  27th,  and  on  that  day  Alderman  Davies 
read  an  opinion  in  favor  of  sustaining  the  claims  of  the 
Associate  Justices  of  the  General  Sessions  to  sit  as 
Judges  of  the  County  Court.  Judge  Ingraham  deliv- 
ered an  adverse  opinion  in  which  Judge  Inglis  con- 

42 


curred.  The  Recorder  gave  an  opinion  sustaining  the 
right  of  the  Associate  Justices,  and  the  First  Judge 
(Ulshoeffer)  delivered  a  written  opinion  adverse  to  the 
claims  of  the  said  Judges  to  sit  as  Judges  of  the  County- 
Court  generally,  but  in  favor  of  the  call  of  the  names  of 
said  Judges  whenever  matters  relating  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  District  Attorney  was  agitated.  A  vote  was 
taken  on  the  question  before  the  Court,  which  resulted 
in  a  tie.  The  matter  was  then  laid  on  the  table  and  the 
Court  adjourned  sine  die. 

TRIAL     OF     JUSTICES     GEORGE    W.     MATZEL,     MILN    PARKER 
AND    EPHRAIM    STEVENS. 

On  September  8th,  1842,  the  Court  met  to  consider 
a  presentment  of  the  grand  jury  sent  by  the  General 
Sessions  to  the  First  Judge  of  the  Common  Pleas  in 
relation  to  the  conduct  of  certain  Special  Justices.  The 
Court,  on  motion,  adopted  an  order  proposed  by  Judge 
Ingraham  referring  the  presentment  of  the  grand  jury 
to  counsel  (Matthew  C.  Paterson)  for  the  purpose  of 
examining  into  the  charges  therein  preferred  against  the 
Special  Justices  and  if  sufficient  evidence  could  be 
secured  to  sustain  such  charges  before  the  Court  that  he 
be  directed  to  prepare  charges  for  such  purpose  and 
report  the  same  to  the  Court.  On  September  23d,  1842, 
the  Court  having  assembled,  Mr.  Paterson  presented  a 
report  prepared  pursuant  to  the  foregoing  order,  ac- 
companied with  charges  and  specifications  against 
George  W.  Matzel,  Miln  Parker  and  Ephraim  Stevens, 
Special  Justices,  and  an  order  was  made  requiring  the 
accused  to  answer  on  the  4th  day  of  October  and  copies 
of  the  charges  and  specifications  were  directed  to  be 

43 


served  upon  them.  On  the  return  day  Matthew  C. 
Paterson  appeared  in  support  of  the  charges,  and 
Messrs.  Brady,  Lord  and  Price  appeared  for  the 
Justices.  Mr.  Paterson  read  ah  affidavit  of  Floyd 
Smith  as  to  the  truth  of  the  charges,  which  was  filed. 
An  affidavit  of  the  service  of  the  charges  and  a  copy  of 
the  rule  to  answer  upon  the  Justices  was  filed.  Mr. 
Paterson  called  upon  the  accused  Justices  to  answer  or 
plead  to  the  charges.  Mr.  Brady,  on  behalf  of  the  Jus- 
tices, objected  to  answer  or  plead  to  the  charges  in 
their  present  form,  charging  the  Justices  jointly  for 
separate  and  specific  acts  done  by  them,  and  suggested 
that  the  prosecutor  amend  them  instanter  and  they 
would  then  be  ready  to  answer  and  proceed  to  trial  at 
once.  Mr.  Paterson  contended  that  the  charges  were 
properly  prepared  and  that  the  Justices  should  plead  to 
them  in  their  present  form.  To  this  Mr.  Lord  ob- 
jected and  stated  that  unless  they  were  amended  a 
motion  must  be  made  to  quash  them.  After  hearing 
further  argument,  the  Court,  through  the  Recorder 
and  the  three  Judges  of  the  Common  Pleas,  considered 
the  charges  defective  for  the  reasons  suggested  by  the 
counsel  for  the  Justices,  and  an  order  was  made  per- 
mitting the  prosecutor  to  change  the  accusations  so  as 
to  charge  the  several  Justices  separately,  and  that  the 
charges  so  amended  be  printed  and  served  four  days 
before  the  meeting  of  the  Court.  On  the  i8th  of 
October  the  Court  convened  and  Mr.  Paterson  ten- 
dered to  the  accused  the  charges  against  them  as 
amended.  Their  counsel  objected  on  the  ground  that 
they  were  entitled  to  four  days'  service  of  the  same, 
which  objection  the  Court  sustained.     An  adjournment 

44 


y^OAi/rucjWdidt 


^.   Uc£^(n^ 


was  had  until  the  25th  inst.  Messrs.  Paterson  and 
O'Conor  then  appeared  for  the  prosecution,  and 
Messrs.  Brady,  Lord,  Price  and  Holden  for  the  Jus- 
tices. An  objection  was  made  on  their  behalf  that  the 
charges  were  not  substantially  the  same  as  those 
directed  by  the  Court  to  be  amended,  and  that  the  new 
charges,  if  entertained,  were  not  sufficiently  verified. 
This  motion  was  argued,  and  on  a  subsequent  day  the 
Court  rendered  its  decision  denying  the  motion  to 
quash  but  amending  the  charges  so  as  to  strike  out  the 
names  of  certain  Aldermen  contained  therein,  and  all 
reference  to  said  Aldermen,  and  adding  the  words 
^ '  divers  other  persons, "  names  of  the  confederates  as 
charged,  and  directing  the  defendants  to  answer. 
Pleas  of  not  guilty  were  put  in  by  the  Justices  and  filed 
on  the  next  day,  and  the  Court  took  an  adjournment  to 
November  2d,  when  the  trial  commenced.  Two  wit- 
nesses duly  subpoenaed  were  attached  for  non-appear- 
ance. The  charges  against  each  Justice  were  separately 
heard.  The  trial  of  Miln  Parker  occupied  fourteen 
days  and  the  charges  were  finally  dismissed;  all  the 
Judges  and  thirteen  Aldermen  voting  for  acquittal  and 
three  Aldermen  voting  for  conviction,  and  it  was  then 
recommended  by  the  Court  to  the  counsel  acting  on 
behalf  of  the  prosecution  that  all  further  proceedings 
against  the  other  Justices,  Matzel  and  Stevens,  be  dis- 
continued unless  some  new  evidence  which  might 
adduce  a  conviction  exist  in  those  cases,  and  Mr. 
Paterson  having  stated  that  he  had  no  new  evidence  to 
offer  against  the  last  named  Justices,  it  was  ordered 
that  the  charges  against  them  be  also  dismissed. 


45 


TRIAL    OF    DR.    C.     H.     JACKSON. 

On  March  2d,  1843,  the  Court  assembled  to  try  a 
charge  preferred  by  the  New  York  County  Medical 
Society  against  Dr.  Charles  H.  Jackson.  The  full 
bench  was  present,  together  with  fourteen  Aldermen. 
The  charge  was  sustained. 

RESIGNATION    OF    DISTRICT  ATTORNEY    JAMES    R.    WHITING. 

On  the  29th  of  May,  1843,  the  Court  assembled  to 
receive  the  resignation  of  James  R.  Whiting  as  District 
Attorney.  On  motion  the  letter  was  engrossed  at 
length  on  the  minutes  of  the  Court.     It  was  as  follows : 

New  York,  May  nth,  1843. 
Dear  Sir: 

I  hereby  resign  the  office  of  District  Attorney  for  the 
City  and  County  of  New  York.  I  respectfully  ask  you 
to  communicate  it  to  the  Honorable  Court  over  which 
you  preside  at  your  earliest  convenience.  As  no  fit 
occasion  has  presented  itself  since  my  appointment  of 
tendering  my  thanks  to  the  Court  for  their  partiality 
in  selecting  me  to  fill  so  important  an  office,  I  have 
deemed  it  now  not  unfit  to  return  to  them  my  warm 
acknowledgments  for  the  high  honor  conferred  upon 
me.  I  accepted  the  trust  with  thankfulness,  and  have 
to  the  best  of  my  ability  performed  its  functions.  I 
part  with  it  without  regret,  but  with  a  lively  sense  of 
gratitude  to  the  appointing  power,  cheered  by  the 
consciousness  which  I  think  I  may,  without  pre- 
sumption, entertain,  that  I  restore  the  trust  unsul- 
lied by  any  act  of  mine.  I  will  continue  to  perform  the 
duties  of  the  office  until  it  shall  please  the  Court  to  sup- 
ply the  vacancy,  and  in  the  meantime  have  the  honor 
to  be,  with  great  respect, 

Your  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

J.  R.  Whiting. 

Hon.  Michael  Ulshoeffer, 
First  Judge  of  the  County  Court,  City  of  New  York. 

46 


On  June  iQth  following  the  Court  assembled  to  con- 
sider the  resignation.  An  adjournment  was  had  to 
June  28th,  1843,  when  the  Court  resolved  that  it  deemed 
it  inexpedient  to  accept  the  resignation  of  James  R. 
Whiting  as  District  Attorney. 

COMPLAINTS    PREFERRED. 

At  the  same  meeting  the  Mayor  stated  that  a  com- 
plaint had  been  preferred  against  Justice  Gilbert  by 
Henry  Smith,  John  C.  Jackson  and  James  Gerry,  and 
that  he  v/as  requested  to  present  the  same  to  the  Court. 
On  motion,  it  was  resolved  that  the  same  be  referred  to 
a  committee  of  three  Judges  of  the  Court  to  examine 
and  report  thereon.  The  following  Judges  w^ere 
appointed  as  the  said  committee:  Aldermen  Woodhull, 
Tillon  and  Brevoort.  On  February  28th  the  Mayor 
handed  in  the  charges  exhibited  against  Justice  Gilbert 
by  Andrew  McGown.  These  charges  were  referred  to 
the  same  committee.  At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Court, 
March  4th,  1844,  the  First  Judge  of  the  Common  Pleas 
stated  that  he  had  convened  the  Court  to  present  a  petition 
of  James  Moncrief  preferring  a  complaint  against  James 
B.  Greenman,  Clerk  to  the  Assistant  Justice  of  the 
Fifth  District  Court.  This  petition  was  referred  to  the 
same  committee.  On  March  12th,  1844,  the  Court  con- 
vened. Alderman  Woodhull,  of  the  committee  to 
whom  the  complaint  against  James  B.  Greenman  was 
referred,  presented  a  written  report  recommending 
that  further  proceedings  in  the  case  be  discontinued. 
The  report  was  accepted. 


47 


The  First  Judge  presented  a  complaint  of  Josiah  M. 
Foote  against  Ebenezer  Stevens,  a  Special  Justice, 
which  was  read  and  referred  to  Alderman  Woodhull's 
committee.  ^ 

On  March  26th,  1844,  the  Court  met,  and  Alderman 
Woodhull  reported  in  favor  of  dismissing  the  complaint 
of  Josiah  M.  Foote  against  Justice  Stevens.  The  report 
was  adopted. 

The  same  committee  reported  on  the  complaint  of 
Andrew  McGown  against  Justice  Gilbert.  On  motion, 
it  was  ordered  that  charges  be  preferred  against  Justice 
Gilbert.  The  vote  upon  the  motion  was  eleven  in  the 
affirmative,  including  Judges  Ingraham  and  Inglis  and 
nine  Aldermen;  and  eight  in  the  negative,  including 
Judge  Ulshoeffer  and  seven  Aldermen.  It  was  ordered 
that  the  District  Attorney  prepare  the  charges  to  be 
founded  upon  the  complaint  presented  to  the  Court. 
On  May  6th,  1844,  the  Court  met  to  proceed  with  the 
hearing  of  the  charges.  On  this  occasion  Judge  Charles 
P.  Daly  sat  for  the  first  time  in  the  Court.  The  District 
Attorney,  Mr.  Whiting,  appeared  for  the  prosecution, 
and  David  Graham,  Jr.  for  the  defendant,  who,  being 
called  upon  to  plead  to  the  charges,  pleaded  not  guilty. 
The  evidence  upon  the  charges  was  taken  before  the 
Court  on  several  days,  down  to  and  including  May  nth, 
1844,  and  eleven  witnesses  were  examined.  The  case 
was  summed  up  and  submitted,  and,  the  Court  having 
re-convened,  Alderman  Scoles  and  the  First  Judge  read 
written  opinions.  On  motion,  the  Court  proceeded  to 
consider  each  specification  separately.  It  was  decided 
that  ' '  the  first  specification  of  the  first  charge  is  proved 
except  as  to  the  quo  aninio  therein  charged."  The  vote 

48 


'c^  ^L_^_^^ 


'/C^ 


stood  eleven  to  nine,  Judge  Daly,  Recorder  Talmadge 
and  ten  Aldermen  voting  in  the  affirmative,  and  Judges 
Ulshoeffer,  Ingraham  and  seven  Aldermen  in  the  nega- 
tive. It  was  decided  that  **  the  second  specification  of 
the  first  charge  except  as  to  the  quo  animo  is  proved  " 
by  a  vote  of  fourteen  to  seven.  A  similar  decision  was 
made  as  to  the  third  specification  of  the  first  charge  by 
a  vote  of  twelve  to  nine.  A  similar  disposition  was 
made  as  to  the  fourth  specification  of  the  first  charge 
by  a  vote  of  eighteen  to  three,  all  the  Judges,  the 
Recorder  and  fourteen  Aldermen  voting  in  the  affirma- 
tive and  three  Aldermen  in  the  negative.  It  was  decided 
**  that  the  fifth  specification  of  the  first  charge  and  that 
the  sixth  specification  of  the  first  charge  was  not 
proved."  On  vote  being  taken  on  the  first  charge. 
Justice  Gilbert  was  declared  not  guilty,  by  a  vote  of 
eight  to  thirteen,  all  the  Judges  and  the  Recorder 
voting  in  the  negative.  The  vote  on  the  second  charge 
was  taken  generally,  and  he  was  declared  not  guilty  by 
a  vote  of  two  to  nineteen,  and  the  following  resolutions 
submitted  by  the  First  Judge  were  adopted : 

First.  Resolved^  That  although  the  evidence  in  the 
case  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  against  Justice 
Gilbert  does  not  justify  the  arrest,  detention  and  com- 
mitment of  Mr.  McGown  as  a  disorderly  person, 
nor  the  fine  hastily  and  summarily  and  without  an  ad- 
journment imposed  upon  Mr.  Lewis  by  said  Justice, 
and  although  the  conduct  of  the  Justice  does  not  meet 
with  the  approbation  of  this  Court,  still  it  appears  by 
the  evidence  that  the  errors  committed  by  the  Justice 
may  have  been  errors  of  judgment  and  were  not  the  re- 
sult of  malice,  corruption  or  oppression. 

Second.  Resolved^  therefore,  That  the  charges  against 

49 


Justice  Gilbert  are  not  substantiated  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  justify  his  removal  from  office,  and  that  con- 
sequently he  stands  discharged  therefrom. 

These  resolutions  were  adopted  by  a  vote  of  twelve  to 
nine,  all  the  Judges  and  the  Recorder,  with  eight 
Aldermen,  voting  in  favor  of,  and  nine  Aldermen 
against  them. 

MR.     MATTHEW    C.     PATERSON    APPOINTED    DISTRICT 
ATTORNEY. 

On  June  loth,  1844,  the  Court  met  to  appoint  a  Dis- 
trict Attorney  in  place  of  Mr.  Whiting,  from  whom  the 
First  Judge  read  a  letter  calling  attention  to  the  fact 
that  his  term  of  office  expired  on  the  4th  inst.  Matthew 
C.  Paterson  was  appointed  to  succeed  him,  the  vote 
standing  thirteen  in  his  favor,  three  for  William  Inglis 
(ex- Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas),  and  two 
scattering. 

COMPLAINTS    AGAINST    JUSTICES    JOSEPH    HASKELL    AND 
WILLIAM    WALN    DRINKER. 

On  Tuesday,  January  21st,  1845,  the  Court  convened 
at  the  request  of  the  Mayor  for  the  purpose  of  receiv- 
ing certain  complaints  against  the  official  conduct  of 
Joseph  Haskell  and  William  Wain  Drinker,  Special 
Justices. 

The  Court  convened  again  on  February  nth,  1845, 
when  Alderman  Schieffelin  made  a  motion  that  the 
District  Attorney  be  authorized  to  associate  with  him- 
self additional  counsel  to  aid  in  conducting  the  proceed- 
ings. The  motion  was  opposed  by  Judge  Ingraham  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  a  matter  discretionary  with  the 

50 


District  Attorney  and  contrary  to  the  practice  of  the 
Court;  but,  the  question  being  taken  on  the  motion,  it 
was  adopted,  and  the  District  Attorney  then  stated  that 
he  had  associated  Ogden  Hoffman  as  counsel,  who 
appeared  and  took  his  seat.  The  District  Attorney 
filed  the  charges  and  specifications  against  Justices 
Haskell  and  Drinker  and  called  upon  Justice  Haskell 
to  plead.  George  Wood  and  James  T.  Brady  appeared 
as  counsel  for  Justice  Haskell,  and  Mr.  Brady  before 
he  proposed  to  plead  to  the  charges  made  a  motion  to 
strike  out  the  fifth  charge  and  addressed  the  Court  in 
support  of  the  motion.  Messrs.  Hoffmann  and  Pater- 
son,  respectively,  addressed  the  Court  in  opposition, 
and  were  followed  by  Mr.  Wood  in  support  of  the 
motion.  A  question  being  taken  upon  striking  out,  it 
was  decided  adversely.  The  answer  of  Justice  Haskell, 
pleading  not  guilty,  was  then  filed,  and  evidence  was 
produced.  The  Court  adjourned  to  the  13th  of  Feb- 
ruary, when  further  evidence  was  taken.  Mr.  Brady 
called  upon  the  District  Attorney  to  exhaust  the  testi- 
mony on  the  part  of  the  prosecution  of  each  witness 
upon  all  the  charges  before  he  proceeded  to  their  cross- 
examination.  The  District  Attorney  objected  to  this, 
and  stated  that  he  proposed  to  examine  all  the  wit- 
nesses upon  each  charge  and  thus  dispose  of  each 
charge  separately  instead  of  dieting  all  the  facts  within 
the  knowledge  of  each  witness  at  once  in  relation  to  the 
various  charges.  The  counsel  for  the  respective 
parties  being  heard  in  support  and  opposition  of  the 
proposed  course  and  a  vote  being  taken  thereon,  the 
course  of  the  District  Attorney  was  sustained  by  a  vote 
of  ten  to  eight.     Mr.  Brady  then  declined  to  cross-ex- 

51 


amine  the  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  prosecu- 
tion until  the  direct  examination  was  concluded  on  all 
charges.  This  course  was  assented  to  by  the  District 
Attorney.  Evidence  was  taken  upon  that  and  nine 
subsequent  days,  until  March  2  2d,  1845,  when  the 
cause  was  summed  up. 

At  the  final  meeting  there  were  present  the 
three  Judges,  Ulshoeffer,  Ingraham  and  Daly,  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas;  James  Harper,  Mayor; 
Frederick  A.  Talmadge,  Recorder,  and  the  following 
Alderman:  William  S.  Miller,  William  Gale,  William 
B.  Cousins,  Lucius  G.  Drake,  William  Tucker,  Horatio 
Mott,  Jeremiah  J.  Dickinson,  David  S.  Jackson, 
Thomas  Winship,  Stephen  Hasbrouck,  Richard  L. 
Schieifelin,  William  C.  Seaman  and  Charles  Devoe. 
Judges  Ulshoeffer,  Ingraham  and  Daly,  and  Aldermen 
Miller,  Dickinson,  Schieffelin  and  Devoe  read  written 
opinions  of  the  case;  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  Has- 
brouck and  Gale  delivered  oral  opinions.  Alderman 
Schieffelin  offered  a  resolution  that  Justice  Haskell  be 
removed  from  the  office  of  Special  Justice  for  the 
following  causes: 

I  St.  Because  he  has  been  guilty  of  arbitrary,  oppress- 
ive and  illegal  conduct  in  the  exercises  of  the  duties 
thereof. 

2nd.  Because  he  has  been  guilty  of  wilful  and 
malicious  conduct  in  the  exercise  of  his  office. 

3rd.  Because  he  has  been  guilty  of  wilful  and  gross 
violations  of  the  duty  of  a  magistrate  in  conduct  tending 
to  defeat  the  ends  of  public  justice. 

4th.  Because  he  has  exhibited  a  violent,  ungovern- 
able and  oppressive  temper,  rendering  him  unfit  for  the 

52 


C^,         /c^^-t^'^X^ty^tr-Ux^ 


'^\ 


(,   X>.  l^xVK/{cA-',^-<4^ 


proper,  fair  and  impartial  discharge  of  the  duties  of 
his  said  office. 

Alderman  Gale  stated  that  although  he  was  in  favor 
of  the  removal  of  Justice  Haskell,  yet  he  could  not  vote 
for  the  resolution  offered  if  it  contained  all  the  causes 
assigned  for  such  removal;  whereupon  Alderman 
Miller  moved  that  it  be  amended  by  striking  out  the 
words  ''wilful  and"  in  the  third  clause,  which  was 
agreed  to  by  a  vote  of  eight  to  six.  The  resolution  was 
then  adopted  by  a  vote  of  eleven  to  seven;  the 
Mayor  and  ten  Aldermen  in  the  affirmative,  the  three 
Judges,  the  Recorder  and  three  Aldermen  in  the 
negative.  He  was,  however,  acquitted  of  the  first  two 
causes  by  a  vote  of  eight  to  ten,  and  convicted  of  the 
last  two  by  a  vote  of  eleven  to  seven.  The  considera- 
tion of  the  charges  against  Justice  Drinker  was  set 
down  for  the  9th  of  April. 

On  April  9th  an  adjournment  was  taken  to  April 
24th. 

TRIAL    OF    JUSTICE    DRINKER. 

On  the  24th  of  April  the  Court  proceeded  to 
the  hearing  of  the  charges  against  Justice  Drinker. 
Mr.  David  Graham,  Jr.,  on  behalf  of  Justice  Drinker, 
filed  a  written  answer  pleading  not  guilty  to  the  first 
and  second  charges  and  demurring  to  the  third.  A 
motion  being  made  to  strike  out  the  words  *  *  has  from 
time  to  time  discharged  persons  accused  of  felonies  and 
misdemeanors  wilihout  examination  or  bail,"  in  the 
specification  to  the  third  charge,  the  same  were  ordered 
to  be  stricken  out.  The  demurrer  being  overruled,  the 
Justice  pleaded  not  guilty  to  the   third   charge.     Wit- 

53 


nesses  were  called  and  examined  on  that  and  five  fol- 
lowing days,  when  the  cause  was  submitted  upon  the 
address  of  counsel  and  the  First  Judge  and  Alderman 
Schieffelin  read  written  opinions,  the  Mayor,  the 
Recorder,  Judge  Daly  and  Aldermen  Miller,  Cousins, 
Drake,  Dickinson  and  Hasbrouck  delivering  oral 
opinions. 

Alderman  Schieffelin  offered  a  resolution  that 

Whereas,  The  charges  against  the  Justice  have  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Court  been  sustained,  that  he  be  removed 
from  office  for  the  following  causes. 

I  St.  That  the  said  William  W.  Drinker  since  his 
appointment  has  been  guilty  of  wilful,  corrupt  and 
illegal  conduct  in  the  exercise  of  his  official  duties. 

2d.  That  he  corruptly  took  moneys  found  in  the 
possession  of  a  prisoner  which  had  been  stolen,  and 
appropriated  same  to  his  own  private  purposes. 

3d.  That  he  has  exhibited  want  of  capacity,  either 
through  ignorance  or  incapacity,  to  discharge  the  duties 
of  his  said  office. 

A  motion  was  made  that  the  resolution  be  amended 
by  striking  out  the  second  cause  assigned,  which  was 
agreed  to  without  a  division.  Motion  was  made  that 
the  words  ''wilful,  corrupt  and  "  in  the  first  cause  be 
stricken  out,  which  was  also  agreed  to  without  a  divi- 
sion. The  question  was  then  put  on  adopting  the  reso- 
lution as  amended  and  it  was  decided  in  the  negative 
by  a  vote  of  six  to  eight,  Aldermen  Williams  and  Bunting 
declined  voting,  not  having  heard  the  whole  of  the  tes- 
timony or  the  argument  of  counsel. 

Judge  Ulshoeffer  then  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tions: 

I  St.    Resolved,  That  although   this   Court    strongly 

54 


disapprove  of  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Drinker  in  the  respects 
stated  in  the  charges  against  him  they  do  not  think  that 
he  should  be  dismissed  from  his  office  or  has  been  proved 
to  be  guilty  of  corrupt  or  malicious  proceedings  in  his 
official  duties. 

2d.  Resolved  therefore,  That  the  charges  against 
Justice  Drinker  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  dismissed. 

Debate  being  had  thereon,  the  resolutions  were  lost  by 
a  vote  of  four  to  ten.  Alderman  Miller  then  moved  that 
the  rejection  of  the  resolutions  offered  by  Alderman 
Schieffelin  be  reconsidered,  which  was  done  by  nine 
affirmative  votes.  Alderman  Miller  then  moved  the 
adoption  of  the  resolutions  of  Alderman  Schieffelin, 
which  was  lost  by  a  tie  vote. 

Alderman  Schieffelin  then  offered  the  following  reso- 
lutions: 

Resolved^  That  although  this  Court  disapprove  of 
the  conduct  of  Mr.  Drinker  in  the  respects  stated  in  the 
charges  against  him  they  do  not  think  that  he  should 
be  dismissed  from  his  office  or  has  been  proved  to  be 
guilty  of  corrupt  or  malicious  proceedings  in  his  official 
duties  although  meriting  the  strongest  censure  of  the 
Court. 

Resolved^  therefore,  That  the  charges  against  Justice 
Drinker  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  dismissed. 

These  resolutions  were  adopted  by  a  vote  of  nine  to 
five. 

MR.     JOHN    MC  KEON    APPOINTED    DISTRICT    ATTORNEY. 

On  February  6th,  1846,  the  Court  met  to  appoint  a 
District  Attorney  and  selected  John  McKeon  for  that 
office. 


55 


INVESTIGATION    OF    CHARGES    AGAINST     JUSTICE     DRINKER. 

On  April  20th,  1846,  the  Court  met  and  the  First 
Judge  stated  that  it  was  convened  pursuant  to  a  resolu- 
tion of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  for  the  purpose  of 
investigating  the  official  conduct  of  William  Wain 
Drinker,  a  Special  Justice;  whereupon,  on  motion  of 
Alderman  Jackson,  it  was  ordered  "that  the  charges  be 
referred  to  the  District  Attorney  for  examination  and 
if  sufficient  evidence  can  be  procured  to  sustain  the 
charges,  that  the  District  Attorney  be  directed  to  pre- 
pare charges  for  such  purpose  and  report  the  same  to- 
this  Court. " 

On  April  25th,  1846,  the  District  Attorney  presented 
charges  to  the  Court,  and  on  May  4th  appeared  in 
behalf  of  the  prosecution  and  Lorenzo  B.  Shepard 
appeared  as  counsel  for  Justice  Drinker.  A  motion 
to  strike  out  the  fourth  charge  was  made  by  him 
and  he  addressed  the  Court  in  support  thereof,  which 
was  denied.  The  Justice  then  pleaded  not  guilty  ta 
the  charges  and  specifications,  and  the  Court  adjourned 
on  the  13th  of  May,  on  which  day  John  McKeon, 
the  District  Attorney,  and  Jonas  B.  Phillips,  Assist- 
ant District  Attorney,  appeared  in  behalf  of  the 
prosecution;  Lorenzo  B.  Shepard  and  James  R. 
Whiting  appeared  as  counsel  for  Justice  Drinker; 
Andrew  H.  Mickle,  Mayor  of  the  City,  sitting  as 
Judge. 

On  the  19th  of  May  the  Court  met  (John  B.  Scott 
being  Recorder)  and  evidence  was  taken  upon  the 
charges.  The  trial  was  continued  to  and  including  the 
26th  of  September,  1846,  the  Court  meeting  upon  sev- 


56 


(j)cCu>cvAtU  duyuu^rn/V^ 


'^1^ 


Of 


.> 


^^■" 


L.    ' 


S^-^t^^c^ 


J^^^Z^UV't^  i?^)^^ 


enteen  days  between  those  dates  for  the  examination  of 
witnesses.  Charles  O 'Conor  was  selected  by  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney  to  assist  in  the  prosecution. 

On  the  26th  of  September  the  Court  met  and 
resolved  "that  although  this  Court  do  not  approve  of 
many  of  the  official  acts  of  Justice  Drinker  as  called  in 
question  by  the  charges  and  specifications  against  him, 
yet  we  do  not  find  that  sufficient  has  been  proved  to 
call  for  or  justify  his  removal  from  office."  This  reso- 
lution, offered  by  Alderman  Benson  and  seconded  by 
Alderman  Stoneall,  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  eleven  to 
seven,  and  the  charges  were  dismissed. 

INQUIRY    INTO    THE    SANITY    OF    JOHN    B.    HASTY. 

On  Monday,  December  21st,  1846,  the  Court  con- 
vened for  the  purpose  of  inquiring  into  the  alleged 
insanity  of  John  B.  Hasty,  one  of  the  police  clerks  of 
the  Special  Justices,  and  into  his  capacity  and  compe- 
tency to  exercise  the  duties  of  his  office.  After  several 
adjournments,  it  was  moved  that  the  charges  against 
Mr.  Hasty  be  dismissed,  a  sufficient  time  not  having 
elapsed  since  the  alleged  insanity  to  justify  his  removal 
from  office.     This  motion  was  adopted. 

TRIAL    OF    JUSTICE    DUFFY. 

The  Court  of  Common  Pleas  as  a  Court  of  Impeach- 
ment was  convened  on  the  12th  of  November,  1877,  with 
the  following  Judges  present :  Charles  P.  Daly,  Charles 
H.  Van  Brunt,  Hamilton  W.  Robinson,  Richard  L. 
Larremore,  Joseph  F.  Daly,  and  George  M.  Van 
Hoesen,  the  full  number  of  Judges  under  the  amended 
Constitution    of    1869.       The   Mayor,     Recorder,   and 

57 


Aldermen,  having  ceased  to  sit  as  Judges  of  tlie  County 
Court  or  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  since  the  amended 
Constitution  of  1846,  and  three  additional  Judges  of  the 
Court  having  been  elected  pursuant  to  the  amendment 
of  1869,  Chief  Justice  Daly  presented  and  filed  affida- 
vits and  charges  made  against  Patrick  G.  Duffy,  Police 
Justice,  pursuant  to  an  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  passed  May  17th  1873,  entitled, 
*' An  Act  to  secure  better  administration  in  the  Police 
Courts  in  the  City  of  New  York."  The  charges  and 
specifications  against  Justice  Duffy  were  printed  and 
filed  in  the  Court,  together  with  his  answer  submitted 
on  January  2 2d,  1878,  by  Algernon  S.  Sullivan  and 
Wheeler  H.  Peckham,  his  counsel.  On  the  last  named 
day  the  Court  assembled  to  receive  the  said  answer  and 
Chief  Justice  Daly  then  announced  that  as  the  several 
Judges  of  the  Court  were  at  this  time  so  engaged  in  the 
different  branches  of  the  Court  that  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  postpone  the  hearing  of  the  testimony  until  the 
first  Monday  of  February  next,  so  that  all  the  Judges 
could  attend,  and  that  the  Court  would  adjourn  until 
that  day  at  11  o'clock,  a.m.,  which  was  done. 

On  February  4th,  1878,  the  Court  met  pursuant  to 
adjournment,  all  the  Judges  except  Judge  Van  Brunt 
being  present.  B.  H.  Phelps,  District  Attorney, 
appeared  for  the  prosecution,  and  Messrs.  Sullivan  and 
Peckham  for  the  defence.  Witnesses  were  examined 
on  that  and  the  two  following  days,  when  the  case  was 
closed  on  both  sides.  By  the  direction  of  the  Court  it 
was  decided  that  the  Court  proceed  to  a  vote  upon  the 
charges  and  that  each  charge  be  heard  by  the  Court 
and   the   question  be  taken  guilty  or  not  guilty.     The 

58 


clerk  then  read  charge  first,  and  upon  calling  each 
Judge  all  the  Judges  voted  not  guilty.  The  clerk  then 
read  charge  second,  and  upon  calling  each  Judge,  all 
the  Judges  voted  not  guilty.  Chief  Justice  Daly  then 
assigned  his  reasons  for  his  vote,  in  which  all  the 
Judges  concurred,  and  the  Court  adjourned. 

TRIAL     OF    JUSTICE    DIVVER. 

On  November  23d,  1894,  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  were  convened  to  consider  written  alle- 
gations filed  by  William  H.  Hale,  an  attorney,  in 
behalf  of  six  residents  and  tax-payers  of  the  city, 
charging  Patrick  Divver,  a  Police  Justice,  with  various 
offences. 

There  were  present  Hon.  Joseph  F.  Daly,  Chief  Jus- 
tice, and  Judges  Henry  W.  Bookstaver,  Henry  Bis- 
choff,  Jr.,  Roger  A.  Pryor  and  Leonard  A.   Giegerich. 

William  H.  Hale  appeared  for  the  residents  and  tax- 
payers; and  Daniel  G.  Rollins  and  Abraham  Levy  for 
the  defendant.  District  Attorney  Col.  John  R.  Fellows 
subsequently  appeared  for  the  people. 

Adjournments  were  taken  to  the  17th,  to  the  19th,  and 
2istinsts.,  andonFriday,  December28th,  1894,  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas  sat  for  the  last  time  as  a  Court  of 
Impeachment.  All  the  Judges  excepting  Judge  Beach 
were  present. 

After  listening  to  the  examination  of  witnesses  and 
the  argument  of  counsel,  the  Judges,  in  accordance 
with  the  statute,  voted  publicly  upon  the  charges. 

The  charges  against  Justice  Divver  were  in  sub- 
stance : 


59 


First :  That  he  was  habitually  careless,  negligent  and 
inefficient  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  his  office. 

Second:  That  on  or  about  October  17th,  1894,  he  had 
made  a  violent  assault  upon  one  Moms  Tekulsky. 

Third:  That  on  or  about  November  3d,  1893,  he  had 
instigated  persons  by  the  offer  of  valuable  rewards  and 
the  promise  of  positions,  to  vote  the  Democratic  ticket. 

Fourth:  That  during  the  year  of  1886,  he  was  accus- 
tomed to  divide  with  one  Edward  Parmely  Jones,  the 
proceeds  of  a  system  of  swindling  commonly  called  the 
*'  Green-goods  Game." 

Fifth  (supplemental) :  That  he  had  at  various  times 
and  places  ' '  systematically  and  habitually  conducted 
and  abetted  false  and  fraudulent  registration,  illegal 
voting,  and  frauds  in  election  returns." 

The  fourth  charge  had  been  dismissed  upon  demur- 
rer, the  majority  of  the  Court  holding  that  it  alleged 
misconduct  not  occurring  during  the  defendant's 
incumbency  of  office,  and  therefore  afforded  no  ground 
for  removal;  and,  upon  the  polling  by  the  clerk,  each 
of  the  five  Judges  in  turn  voted  either  *'  not  proven  '  * 
or  "not  guilty"  to  the  first,  second,  third  and  fifth 
charges. 

After  the  polling  of  the  Judges,  on  motion  of  the 
counsel  for  Justice  Divver,  the  proceedings  were  dis- 
missed. 


60 


JOHN  TREAT  IRVINC: 


THE  HONORABLE  JOHN  TREAT  IRVING. 

John  Treat  Irving,  first  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  was  born  in  New  York  City,  May  26th,  1778,  in 
the  quaint,  gabled  house  his  father  had  erected  on  Van- 
dewater  Street. 

His  father,  William  Irving,  was  a  native  of  Kirkwall, 
the  capital  of  the  Orkney  Islands,  and  of  good  lineage. 
He  followed  the  calling  of  a  navigator,  and  for  many 
years  sailed  on  vessels  engaged  in  trade  between  the 
ports  of  New  York  and  Falmouth,  England.  In  Fal- 
mouth, he  met  and  married  Sarah  Sanders,  a  woman  of 
rare  beauty  and  charm  of  character,  and  two  years 
later,  in  1763,  finally  settled  in  New  York  City,  where 
he  established  himself  in  trade  on  William  Street,  mid- 
way between  Fulton  and  John  Streets. 

He  was  a  man  of  great  decision,  of  a  stern  type  of 
piety  and  sense  of  duty  almost  puritanic,  and  exerted  a 
strong  disciplinary  influence  over  his  sons.  During  the 
Revolution  his  fervid  patriotism  exposed  him  to 
numerous  dangers  and  difficulties,  and  at  one  time  he 
was  compelled  to  take  refuge  in  New  Jersey. 

His  son  John,  like  his  other  brothers,  was  sent  to  pri- 
vate schools  in  the  neighborhood  of  his  home — for  the 
city  was  small  then  and  thinly  settled — and  was  admitted 
to  Columbia  College. 

Being  graduated  in  1798,  he  immediately  took  up  the 
study  of  law,  in  which  his  marked  natural  ability  and 

61 


devoted  hard  work  soon  gained  him  a  conspicuous  posi- 
tion. He  was  also  active  in  public  affairs  and  during 
1 8 16-17  was  a  member  of  the  State  Assembly. 

Appointed  in  182 1  a  Judge  of  the^Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  he  served  as  First  Judge,  both  in  title  and  in 
chronological  order,  till  his  death  in  1838,  in  all  seven- 
teen years. 

He  was  possessed  of  literary  ability,  and  in  his  earlier 
years  contributed  extensively  to  the  columns  of  the 
Chronicle^  edited  by  his  brother,  Washington  Irving, 
gaining  considerable  reputation  by  his  poetical  attacks 
on  political  opponents.  The  claims  of  his  profession, 
however,  occupied  his  time  and  attention  in  later 
years. 

From  18 18  until  his  death  he  was  a  trustee  of  Colum- 
bia. He  was  a  regular  attendant,  and  for  many  years 
a  vestryman,  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York. 

In  his  personal  character  he  was  of  unflinching  integ- 
rity and  great  refinement.  He  enjoyed  the  respect  of 
the  community  and  was  a  recognized  leader  in  public 
affairs. 

Judge  Irving's  wife  was  Abby  Furman,  daughter  of 
Gabriel  and  Sarah  (Wall)  Furman,  whom  he  married 
April  28th,    1806. 

Jiidge  Irving  died  at  his  home,  37  Chambers  Street, 
New  York,  March,  15th,  1838.  Upon  his  death  a  marble 
tablet  with  his  bust,  in  relievo^  and  a  suitable  inscription 
was  placed  in  the  Court  room. 

His  son,  John  Treat  Irving,  his  grandson,  the  son  of 
John  Treat  Irving,  Cortlandt  Irving,  are  to-day  prac- 
ticing members  of  the  bar.  Another  son,  Mr.  George 
Irving,  acted  as  one  of  the  secretaries  on  the  occasion 

62 


of  the  final  proceedings  of  the  Court  on  December 
30th,  1895. 

In  his  introduction  to  the  first  of  E.  D.  Smith's 
Reports,  Chief  Justice  Charles  P.  Daly  says  of  Judge 
Irving:  "  As  a  Judge,  he  was  in  many  respects  a  model 
for  imitation.  To  the  strictest  integrity  and  a  strong 
love  of  justice  he  united  the  most  exact  and  methodical 
habits  of  business.  Attentive,  careful,  and  painstaking, 
few  Judges  in  this  State  ever  have  been  more  accurate, 
or  perhaps  more  generally  correct  in  their  decisions. 

**  While  presiding  at  nisiprius,  he  was  not  what  would 
be  termed  a  quick-minded  man ;  but  when  questions 
were  argued  before  him  i7t  banc,  he  bestowed  so  much 
care  and  considered  each  case  so  attentively  that  his 
judgments  were  rarely  reversed,  and  were  uniformly 
treated  by  the  Courts  of  Revision  with  the  greatest 
respect. " 


63 


THE   HONORABLE    MICHAEL    ULSHOEFFER. 

Michael  Ulshoeffer,  second  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas,  was  born  in  New  York  City,  March  30,  1793. 

His  father,  George  Ulshoeffer,  born  in  1748,  at 
Creglingen,  in  the  dominion  of  the  Margrave  of  Ans- 
pach  and  Bayreuth,  was  forced  mto  the  British  service 
and  sent  to  America  in  1777.  Many  of  these  Hessians 
became  in  the  end  citizens  of  the  Republic. 

George  Ulshoeffer  remained  in  America  after  the 
war,  and  in  1785  came  to  New  York,  where  he  resided, 
a  teacher  of  music,  until  his  death  in  1836. 

He  married  Margareth  Miller,  of  Pennsylvania,  wha 
survived  him  many  years  and  died  in  this  city  at  the  age 
of  ninety-eight. 

Their  son,  Michael  Ulshoeffer,  studied  law  in  the 
office  of  T.  W.  Smith,  at  No.  3  Cedar  Street,  and  after- 
wards became  his  partner. 

In  181 3  he  was  admitted  as  an  attorney  in  the 
Mayor's  Court  or  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  and  in  the 
same  year  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State.* 

He  was  appointed  in  18 14  a  Notary  Public,  and  in 
in  18 1 5  a  Master  in  Chancery,  and  served  from  1815  ta 
1825  as  Notary  of  the  City  Bank.  In  181 6  he  was 
admitted  as   a  counsellor-at-law  in  the   Mayor's  Court 


*  The  various  dates  of  admittance  to  practice  in  the  different  Courts  have 
been  inserted  in  the  sketch  of  Judge  Ulshoeffer  as  illustrative  of  the  prac- 
tice of  another  day  and  generation. 

64 


MICHAEL  ULSHOEFFER. 


and  in  the  Supreme  Court,  and  in  1817  to  the  United 
States  Circuit  and  District  Courts.  In  181 7  he  was 
elected  to  the  State  Assembly,  and  was  re-elected  in 
1818,  1819,  1820,  and  1821. 

Hammond,  who  was  opposed  politically  to  Judge 
Ulshoeffer,  in  his  *' History  of  Political  Parties  in  the 
State  of  New  York,"  several  times  refers  to  his  career  in 
the  Legislature.  He  says  that  **  The  principal  and  most 
zealous  of  the  members  of  the  New  York  delegation 
(opponents  of  DeWitt  Clinton)  in  181 8  were:  Ogden 
Edwards,  Peter  Sharpe,  and  Michael  Ulshoeffer,"  and 
again,  that  "  In  1820,  the  most  powerful  and  efficient 
men  in  opposition  to  endorsing  the  action  of  the  Comp- 
troller in  auditing  the  accounts  of  Daniel  D.  Tompkins, 
late  Governor,  were  Root,  Sharpe,  Romain,  Ulshoeffer, 
J.  T.  Irving,  and  Seymour,  and  that  for  skill  in  argu- 
ment, pungency  of  wit,  and  clear,  sound,  logical  powers 
of  mind,  few  men  of  that  age  would,  he  imagined,  have 
excelled  Oakley,  Williams,  Root,  Spencer,  Ulshoeffer, 
Romain,  and  McKown." 

In  General  Wilson's  "History  of  the  City  of  New 
York,"  it  is  written  that  "When  in  1820,  a  bill  providing 
for  a  convention  to  revise  the  Constitution  of  the  State 
was  disapproved  by  the  Council  of  Revision — Chancellor 
Kent  writing  the  opinion  with  all  the  conservatism  of  a 
trained  lawyer — the  report  of  Michael  Ulshoeffer,  chair- 
man of  the  select  committee  of  the  Assembly,  com- 
bated the  logic  of  the  veto  with  great  vigor,  and  the 
report  was  regarded  as  the  abler  State  paper  of  the  two. 

In  1819,  Mr.  Ulshoeffer  was  admitted  as  solicitor  and 
counsellor  in  chancery.  Mr.  Ulshoeffer  was  in  partner- 
ship with  William  W.   Boyd  from  1823  until  1829,  when 

65 


.Mr.  Boyd  retired  on  account  of  ill-health.  In  182 1  he 
was  appointed  Corporation  Attorney  of  the  City  of  New- 
York.  In  1823,  it  was  resolved  by  the  Common  Coun- 
cil that  he  should  perform  the  duties  of  counsel  to  the 
Board  during-  their  pleasure.  In  1825  he  was  formally 
appointed  counsel  to  the  Corporation,  and  the  same  year 
the  offices  of  attorney  and  counsel  to  the  Corporation 
were  separated.     He  served  until  1829. 

In  1828  he  was  admitted  an  attorney  and  counsellor 
in  the  Superior  Court  of  the  City  of  New  York.  In 
1834  he  was  appointed  by  the  Governor,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  Senate,  Associate  Judge  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  and  was  re-appointed  in  1843.  In  1846 
he  was  elected  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
under  the  new  Constitution  and  drew  the  shortest  term, 
two  years.  He  was  chosen  First  Judge  by  his  associ- 
ates in  1838,  and  held  the  office  continuously  until  the 
expiration  of  his  service  on  the  bench,  December  31, 
1849.  His  portrait  was  painted  by  Elliott  at  the  request 
of  members  of  the  bar,  and  hangs  in  what  was  the 
Court  room  of  the  General  Term  of  the  Common  Pleas. 

As  there  were  no  regular  reports  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  in  his  time,  a  few  of  his  opinions  appear 
in  the  first  of  E.  D.  Smith's  Reports  and  in  the  Code 
Reporter  and  City  Hall  Reporter. 

Judge  Ulshoeffer  never  afterwards  practiced  law,  but 
served  on  many  boards  and  commissions  and  as  a  referee 
and  arbitrator.  He  was  one  of  the  commissioners  to 
appraise  the  lands  taken  for  Central  Park.  He  was 
one  of  the  founders  of  the  Law  Institute  of  New  York 
City.  He  joined  the  Tammany  Society  in  181 7  and 
was  elected  Sachem  in  181 8. 

66 


The  only  public  office  he  held  after  leaving  the  bench 
was  as  Commissioner  of  the  Metropolitan  Police  in  1859 
and  i860  under  the  Act  of  1857.  The  Act  of  i860 
legislated  the  Board  out  of  office. 

He  was  a  vestryman  of  St.  Mark's  Church  for  years, 
then  warden.  Afterwards  a  vestryman  of  Grace 
Church,  until  forced  by  age  to  retire.  He  served  fre- 
quently as  a  delegate  to  the  Diocesan  Convention, 
where  he  was  on  the  Committee  for  the  Incorporation 
of  Churches. 

In  politics  he  always  claimed  to  be  a  Democrat,  but 
insisted  that  often  the  party  had  deserted  its  principles. 
He  voted  for  those  he  considered  the  best  men  without 
much  regard  to  party.     He  was  a  War  Democrat. 

During  his  last  years  he  spent  much  of  his  time  in 
reading  over  and  destroying  his  papers  and  correspond- 
ence, and  left  nothing  concerning  himself  or  others. 
Although  he  lent  his  books  freely,  he  always  refused  to 
allow  any  of  his  private  papers  to  go  out  of  his  hands, 
believing  that  much  unnecessary  trouble  is  caused  by 
raking  over  men's  lives,  and  that  there  is  much  to  be 
forgiven  and  more  to  be  forgotten. 

He  married  Mary  Ann  Gracie  in  1823  and  had  several 
children,  some  of  whom  survive. 

He  died  in  New  York  City,  Sept.  6,  1881,  at  the  age 
of  eighty- eight  years. 


67 


THE  HONORABLE  DANIEL  P.   INGRAHAM. 

Daniel  Phoenix  Ingraham,  third  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,  was  born  in  New  York  City  April 
2 2d,  1800.  He  was  educated  at  a  private  school  in  Mor- 
ristown,  New  Jersey,  entered  Columbia  College  at  the 
age  of  thirteen,  and  was  graduated  in  the  class  of  181 7. 
During  the  next  four  years  he  studied  law  in  the  office 
of  Hon.  Richard  Riker,  Recorder  of  the  City  of  New 
York.  When  of  age,  Mr.  Ingraham  was  admitted  to 
practice  in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  and  later  in  the 
other  Courts  of  the  city. 

He  was  elected  Assistant  Alderman  from  the  Twelfth 
Ward  in  1835,  and  the  two  following  years  represented 
the  same  ward  in  the  Board  of  Aldermen.  In  1838 
Gov.  Marcy  appointed  him  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas  in  New  York  City  to  fill  a  vacancy.  In  1 843  he 
was  re-appointed  to  hold  office  until  1846,  when  by  the 
provisions  of  the  new  Constitution,  the  office  became 
elective.  The  esteem  in  which  he  was  generally  held 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  was  returned  to  the  office 
by  a  large  vote  and  re-elected  in  185 1.  He  was  chosen 
First  Judge  of  the  Court  two  years  later,  and  held  the 
office  until  1858,  and  was  elected  a  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  State  in  1857  and  re-elected  in 
1865.  In  1870  Gov.  Hoffman  appointed  him  Presiding 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  First  District  in 
New  York,  a  position  which  he  filled  with  honor  and 

68 


DANIEL   P.  INGRAHAM. 


dignity  until  January  i,  1874,  when,  being  over  seventy 
years  of  age  and  not  eligible  to  re-election,  he  retired 
to  private  life. 

Judge  Ingraham  had  many  cases  of  the  greatest 
importance  tried  before  him;  among  others,  that  of 
Schuyler,  who  was  accused  by  the  New  York  &  New 
Haven  Railroad  Company  of  issuing  and  selling  $3,000,- 
000  worth  of  fraudulent  stocks ;  of  Cole  for  the  murder 
of  Hiscock;  and  of  Stokes  for  the  murder  of  Fiske. 
Judge  Ingraham's  decisions  have  been  acknowledged 
to  be  among  the  soundest  and  most  impartial  in  the 
judicial  history  of  the  State.  His  integrity  was  incor- 
ruptible, and,  although  he  had  many  political  opponents, 
he  invariably  compelled  their  respect  and  their  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  honesty  and  purity  of  his  public  and 
private  life,  and  his  fidelity  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
community  he  served. 

As  a  student,  Judge  Ingraham  devoted  much  of  his 
spare  time  to  historical  and  geographical  research,  and 
was  a  member  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society  and 
of  the  American  Geographical  Society.  He  was  for 
many  years  one  of  the  Elders  of  the  Collegiate  Dutch 
Church  in  the  City  of  New  York.  On  January  25,  1838, 
he  married  Miss  Mary  Hart  Landon,  of  Connecticut,  by 
whom  he  had  three  sons,  all  now  living,  and  one  of 
whom,  Judge  George  L.  Ingraham,  was  elected  a  Justice 
of  the  Superior  Court  in  1882,  and  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  1891,  and  is  now  one  of  the  seven  original 
members  of  the  Appellate  Division  of  the  Supreme 
Court  for  the  First  Judicial  District  of  New  York. 

Judge  Daniel  P.  Ingraham  died  December  12,  1881. 
His  portrait  now  hangs  on  the  walls  of  the  Supreme 
Court  room.  Appellate  Division. 

69 


THE   HONORABLE    WILLIAM    INGLIS. 

William  Inglis,  fourth  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  was,  it  is  believed,  born  in  the  city  of  New- 
York.  His  father  appears  to  have  been  John  Inglis  a 
native  of  Scotland,  who  was  a  merchant  doing  business 
in  the  lower  part  of  the  city  as  early  as  1812,  and  for 
years  thereafter;  or  this  may  have  been  the  Judge's 
grandfather — for  there  was  a  John  Inglis  in  New  York 
in  1785,  the  only  one  of  the  name  then  living  there. 
Judge  Inglis  was  prepared  for  and  entered  Columbia 
College,  being  graduated  with  the  class  of  1821.  His 
career  as  a  student  was  distinguished,  but  he  never 
fully  realized  the  great  expectations  formed  of  his 
future,  not  so  much  from  want  of  intellectual  ability, 
as  from  a  certain  inertness  that  indisposed  him  to 
exertion  where  it  could  be  dispensed  with ;  and  as  he 
had  a  modest  patrimony,  and  was  careful  and  economi- 
cal in  his  habits,  he  was  able  in  that  respect  to  do  as  he 
wished.  His  application  in  college,  however,  must 
have  been  close ;  and  on  his  graduation  he  was  a  good 
classical  scholar,  and  with  other  requirements  had  a 
knowledge  of  modern  languages,  speaking  French 
fluently. 

He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1826,  took  an  ofhce  in 
Pine  Street,  and  during  the  thirteen  years  that  followed 
until  his  appointment  to  the  bench,  held  what  might 
be  called  a  highly  respectable  position  at  the  bar,  with- 

70 


out  being  especially  distinguished  either  as  a  lawyer  or 
an  advocate.  When  a  heated  political  controversy 
arose  about  the  policy  of  General  Jackson  towards  the 
United  States  Bank,  and  the  Whig  party  was  formed, 
he  took  a  somewhat  prominent  part  in  the  formation 
and  proceedings  of  that  party ;  and  it  was  probably  due 
to  that  circumstance  that  he  was  selected  as  a  proper 
person  to  fill  the  new  judgeship  in  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas,  then  just  created  by  an  act  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  to  which  he  was  appointed  in  1839. 

The  appointment  proved  highly  satisfactory,  and  he 
became  a  favorite  Judge  for  the  trial  of  causes.  The 
leading  and  the  more  learned  members  of  the  bar 
especially  liked  to  try  causes  before  him,  because  they 
were  sure  that  every  point  made  by  them,  however 
learned  or  acute,  would  be  fully  comprehended  and 
duly  considered;  and  he  was  popular  also  with  the 
jurors,  for  in  his  charge  he  made  everything  clear  to 
them — in  fact,  he  was  what  might  be  called  a  model 
Judge  at  nisi  prills — intelligent,  discriminating,  patient, 
rarely  interrupting  and  giving  close  attention  to  the 
evidence  upon  which  the  facts  depended,  and  to  the 
discussion  of  the  questions  of  law  that  were  raised, 
which  it  is  for  the  Judge  alone  on  the  trial  to  decide. 
He  was  also  very  kind  to  young  men,  always  willing  to 
aid  and  to  afford  them  every  assistance,  and  invariably 
courteous. 

He  was  not  so  satisfactory  in  other  branches  of  his 
judicial  duty.  Except  in  settling  a  case  or  bill  of 
exceptions  for  review,  which  could  not  be  dispensed 
with,  he  did  everything  orally,  as  far  as  he  could. 
Where  cases  were  argued  in  banc,  that  is,  before  the 

71 


three  Judges  together,  to  set  aside  a  verdict  or  grant  a 
new  trial  for  some  error  of  law  at  the  trial,  or  errors  of 
any  kind  that  entitled  the  defeated  party  to  a  new  trial, 
if  he  could  have  had  his  way,  he  would  have  rendered 
decision  immediately  upon  the  close  of  the  argument, 
even  when  his  colleagues  thought  that  the  points 
involved  required  a  more  deliberate  examination,  a 
careful  perusal  of  the  case  as  settled,  looking  into  the 
authorities  cited,  and  other  things  essential  to  a  care- 
fully matured  judgment,  which  requires  time  and  due 
deliberation.  Judges  in  banc  take  the  case,  as  it  is  said, 
and  afterwards  announce  the  result  in  a  written  opin- 
ion, showing  upon  what  grounds  they  place  their  con- 
clusion and  judgment;  but  simply  to  endorse  on  the 
papers  *' reversed  "or  "  affirmed,"  is  not  very  satisfac- 
tory to  the  one  who  is  defeated,  nor  even  to  the  one 
who  succeeds,  as  the  case  may  be  carried  up  to  a  higher 
Court.  Yet  this  was  all  that  he  ever  did,  for  it  is  said 
that  he  never  gave  a  written  opinion  upon  these  final 
judgments  and  assigned  as  a  reason  for  it  that  it  was 
unnecessary,  as  no  reports  of  the  Court  were  then 
published,  and  it  was  merely  writing  an  opinion  to  be 
filed  among  the  papers.  He  overlooked  the  fact  that  a 
large  part  of  the  common  law  was  made  up  in  this  way 
by  the  Judges  having  their  conclusion,  and  the  reasons 
for  it,  briefly  stated  in  writing  upon  the  record,  long 
before  any  such  thing  as  law  reports  were  known,  which 
began  with  the  Year  Books,  and  that  it  was  from 
recorded  memoranda  of  this  kind,  put  in  writing  by 
order  of  the  Judges,  upon  record,  that  Bracton,  one  of 
the  earliest  and  the  ablest  of  the  early  writers  on  the 
English  law,  was  enabled  to  produce  his  celebrated  trea- 

72 


WILLIAM  INGLIS. 


tise  to  show  what  the  common  law  was.  This  omission 
on  his  part  was  the  more  marked  because  his  associates 
never  suffered  a  case  that  had  been  taken  for  further 
consideration  to  be  decided  without  a  written  opinion 
by  one  of  them,  and  sometimes  two. 

But  notwithstanding  this  omission  and  the  complaints 
made  about  it,  he  was  a  Judge  that  everybody  liked. 
Mr.  O'Conor  then  one  of  the  great  leaders  of  the  bar, 
had  a  high  opinion  of  his  merit  as  a  Judge,  and  so  had 
all  the  lawyers,  and  particularly  those  who  had  the 
largest  practice  in  the  Court,  and  were  the  best  able  to 
judge. 

He  was  always  affable  and  ready  to  chat  with  any 
member  of  the  profession  as  the  opportunity  offered ; 
and  in  this  easy  familiarity  made  little  or  no  distinc- 
tion between  the  highest  and  the  humblest  member  of 
the  bar.  He  was  fond  of  what  is  called  gossip,  and  had 
a  large  amount  of  local  information  respecting  promi- 
nent New  York  families,  could  tell  with  whom  they 
had  intermarried,  and  had  a  remarkable  memory  for 
the  smallest  details  which  would  scarcely  be  expected 
from  a  bachelor  who  rarely  went  into  society  or  was 
seen  at  any  social  gathering  or  party.  He  seemed  to 
take  pleasure  in  this  kind  of  information  and  retained 
in  his  memory  many  details  which  would  escape  from 
the  minds  of  others. 

As  his  term  was  about  to  expire  (the  appointment 
was  then  for  but  five  years),  there  was  a  very  general 
desire  on  the  part  of  the  bar  for  his  reappointment,  but 
the  Democratic  party  having  been  then  for  some  years 
out  of  power,  there  was  a  determination  to  make  full 
use  of  the  newly  acquired  patronage  for  political  pur- 

73 


poses  and  to  make  no  distinction  even  in  respect  to  the 
bench.  Two  lawyers  who  were  active  politicians, 
became  candidates:  Thomas  W.  Waterman,  author  of 
a  work  on  "  Injunctions, "  long  since  superseded,  and 
Thomas  Jeiferson  Smith,  afterwards  a  Judge  of  the 
Marine  Court ;  both  of  them  inferior  to  Judge  Inglis  in 
legal  knowledge  and  ability.  As  it  was  a  local  appoint- 
ment, the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  being  confined  to  the 
city  of  New  York,  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Gov- 
ernor to  appoint  the  person  agreed  upon  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  city  of  New  York,  of  his  own  party, 
in  the  Legislature.  It  so  happened  however,  that 
Waterman  and  Smith  who  were  very  influential  politi- 
cians, divided  the  New  York  delegation  so  that  they 
were  equally  balanced  both  in  the  Senate  and  Assem- 
bly, and  as  neither  party  would  give  way  to  the  other, 
no  agreement  could  be  arrived  at.  In  this  state  of 
things,  it  was  hoped  that  Judge  Inglis  might  be  reap- 
pointed, especially  as  the  Democratic  lawyers  of  New 
York  had  strongly  urged  his  reappointment.  But  Gov- 
ernor Bouck  was  unwilling  to  make  any  exception  and 
would  appoint  no  one  who  was  not  a  Democrat.  He 
sought  the  advice  of  Governor  Marcy,  a  very  distin- 
guished man  of  large  political  experience,  afterwards 
Secretary  of  State  under  President  Polk,  and  he  re- 
commended the  appointment  of  Charles  P.  Daly,  a 
young  man  then  twenty-seven  years  of  age,  to  the  dele- 
gation for  the  appointment.  Judge  Daly  had  been  a 
member  of  the  Legislature  the  previous  year,  and  as 
many  of  the  delegation  had  been  members  with  him, 
they  accepted  this  compromise  and  agreed  upon  him. 
Judge  Daly  declined  the   appointment   when  offered, 

74 


being  a  friend  of  Judge  Inglis  whose  appointment  he  had 
warmly  advocated,  but  afterwards  accepted  it  at  that 
Judge's  personal  request,  Judge  Inglis  being  satisfied 
that  his  own  reappointment  could  not  be  obtained. 

On  leaving  the  bench  Judge  Inglis  took  an  office  in 
John  Street,  which  he  kept  thereafter  for  many  years, 
doing,  however,  comparatively  little  or  no  business  ex- 
cept an  occasional  reference,  but  passed  a  large  part  of 
his  time  in  the  Society  Library,  in  which  he  became  a 
trustee  in  1837,  and  continued  until  1855,  and  held  for 
many  years  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Board  of 
Trustees,  the  distinguished  New  York  scholar  Gulian 
C.  Ver  Planck  being  its  chairman.  The  Society 
Library  having  no  president,  the  chairman  of  the  board 
was  its  highest  officer. 

Judge  Inglis  was  an  omnivorous  reader  and  pre- 
ferred being  among  his  books  than  anywhere  else.  He 
was  rarely  thereafter  seen  about  the  Courts,  seldom  if 
ever  went  into  society  or  mingled  much  with  men.  He 
had  an  intimate  young  friend,  a  lawyer,  and  when  tak- 
ing exercise  in  the  Park  upon  the  Battery,  his  favorite 
resort,  they  were  almost  invariably  together.  It  might 
be  supposed  that  so  accomplished  a  man  with  such  a 
widely  extended  and  varied  amount  of  information 
would  have  devoted  his  time  at  least  in  part,  to  some 
literary  work  or  to  the  production  of  a  law  book  that  was 
wanted  and  could  be  useful ;  but  he  appears  to  have 
,had  no  inclination  for  anything  of  the  kind. 

While  he  was  on  the  bench  he  was  invited  by 
Columbia  College  to  deliver  a  literary  address  upon 
some  particular  occasion  which  he  accepted,  and  a 
friend  of  his  who  heard  it  said  regretfully  that  it  was  a 

75 


failure ;  that  it  manifested  learning  enough  but  wanted 
constructiveness,  and  that  the  general  impression  of 
those  present  seemed  to  be  that  of  disappointment.  It 
may  be  therefore  said  that  with  all  his  requirements  he 
lacked  naturally  the  art,  or  had  never  taken  the  trouble 
to  acquire  it,  of  making  use  of  his  knowledge  in  pro- 
ducing something  even  for  his  own  gratification,  or 
which  might  be  useful  or  prove  agreeable  or  entertain- 
ing to  others.  His  life  would  probably  have  been  a 
pleasanter  and  happier  one  if  he  had ;  for  after  he  left 
the  bench,  and  especially  as  he  advanced  in  years,  he 
became  moody,  and  it  is  said  in  his  latter  years,  to  have 
been  under  the  infatuation  that  he  would  eventually 
come  to  want,  a  condition  not  to  be  apprehended  in  a 
man  of  his  prudence  and  economical  habits.  A  few 
years  before  his  death  he  went  to  New  Jersey  and  took 
up  his  residence  at  Hoboken,  and  is  said  to  have  died 
in  1863. 


76 


THE  HONORABLE  CHARLES  P.  DALY,  LL.D. 

Charles  P.  Daly,  fifth  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  was  born  in  the  City  of  New  York,  Oct.  31st, 
1 81 6.  His  parents  had  emigrated  from  the  North  of  Ire- 
land in  1 8 14  and  settled  in  this  city^  where  the  father  was 
a  master  carpenter.  His  ancestors  were  the  O'Dalys  of 
County  Galway,  a  family  notable  in  Irish  history  for  its 
many  scholars,  bards  and  legislators. 

He  began  his  education  at  a  private  school,  where  he 
had  for  classmates  among  others  the  late  Cardinal  John 
McCloskey  and  the  late  James  T.  Brady. 

The  death  of  his  father,  however,  interrupted  his 
studies;  and,  high-minded  even  as  a  boy,  he  was  unwill- 
ing to  depend  upon  a  widowed  stepmother.  He  went  to 
Savannah,  Georgia,  where  he  obtained  employment  as 
a  clerk,  but  chafing  under  ill-treatment,  he  shipped  as  a 
sailor  before  the  mast  and  for  the  next  three  years  fol- 
lowed the  sea.  His  naturally  active  mind  was,  in  the 
meantime,  busy  collecting  knowledge  and  his  original 
observations  on  the  geographical  and  historical  features 
of  the  many  places  visited  in  the  course  of  his  voyages, 
laid  the  foundation  for  the  interest  in  those  subjects  in 
after  life. 

On  his  return  to  New  York  he  apprenticed  himself  to 
learn  the  trade — which  was  before  the  days  of  steel  pens 
and  envelopes — of  preparing  quills  for  writing  and  mak- 
ing sealing  wax  and  wafers,  and  in  his  leisure  hours 

77 


continued  his  studies.  He  joined  a  literary  society, 
and  soon  developed  remarkable  aptitude  of  mind  and 
great  readiness  as  a  debater.  Hi^  exceptional  abilities 
attracted  the  attention  of  William  Soule,  a  member  of 
the  bar,  who  earnestly  urged  him  to  study  law,  even 
offering  to  defray  the  cost  of  his  going  through  a  colle- 
giate course  preparatory  to  beginning  his  legal  studies. 
He  was,  however,  too  proud  to  put  himself  under  such 
an  obligation,  but  upon  the  expiration  of  his  term  of 
indenture  became  a  clerk  in  Mr.  Soule's  office  and 
devoted  himself  with  characteristic  assiduity  to  his  pro- 
fessional studies. 

The  student  of  law  was  at  that  time  required  to  devote 
seven  years  to  his  preparation  for  the  bar,  but  so  rapid 
was  Mr.  Daly's  progress  that  upon  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Rowley,  senior  member  of  the  firm,  the  rule  was 
relaxed  in  his  case  by  Chief  Justice  Nelson,  and  he  was 
admitted  to  the  bar  at  the  end  of  three  and  one-half 
years  of  study.  He  at  once  formed  a  partnership  with 
Thomas  McElrath,  afterward  the  founder,  with  Horace 
Greeley,  of  the  New  York  ''Tribune."  He  rapidly 
attained  prominence  at  the  bar,  and  became  noted  for 
the  lucidity  and  compactness  of  his  legal  documents  and 
his  ability  in  the  trial  of  causes.  His  notable  eloquence 
seems  also  to  have  been  a  natural  qualification,  which 
at  once  brought  him  prominence  and  renown. 

He  was  elected  to  the  Legislature  in  1843,  and  after 
serving  his  term  there  was  offered  a  nomination  for 
Congress,  in  a  district  where  his  election  was  certain, 
which  he  declined.  In  1844  expired  the  term  of  Judge 
Inglis,  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  and,  although 
strongly  urged  to  re-appoint  him,  Gov.    Bouck  offered 

78 


the  vacant  seat  to  Mr.  Daly,  then  but  twenty-eight 
years  of  age.  He  at  first  declined  the  honor  on  the 
ground  of  his  youth  and  inexperience,  at  the  same  time 
strongly  urging  the  prior  claims  of  Inglis.  But  upon 
being  urged  by  the  Governor,  who  would  not  re-appoint 
Judge  Inglis,  and  by  Judge  Inglis  himself  who  pre- 
ferred Mr.  Daly  to  any  other  possible  successor,  he 
accepted  the  honorable  office  which  he  continued  to 
hold  for  forty-one  years. 

When  by  the  Constitution  of  1 846  the  office  was  made 
elective.  Judge  Daly  was  promptly  chosen  by  popular 
vote  for  a  term  of  six  years ;  and  was  three  times  there- 
after re-elected  for  similar  terms.  In  187 1  the  public 
appreciation  of  his  ability,  fidelity  and  integrity  was 
shown  in  an  unprecedented  fashion.  His  last  appear- 
ance before  the  popular  vote  was  well  befitting  his 
career.  After  the  exposure  of  Tweed  and  his  satellites 
Judge  Daly  was  nominated  to  succeed  himself  by  all 
factions  in  the  Democracy  and  by  the  Republicans. 
Every  vote  cast  in  the  City  of  New  York  in  the  election 
of  187 1  bore  the  name  of  the  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Common  Pleas. 

Judge  Daly  became  '*  First  Judge"  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  upon  the  resignation  of  Judge  Daniel 
Ingraham  in  1857,  and  was  re-chosen  to  the  post  in 
187 1,  with  title  of  "  Chief  Justice. "  He  would  undoubt- 
edly have  long  continued  in  office  had  not  the  State 
Constitution  of  1867  prescribed  the  resignation  of  a 
Judge  when  seventy  years  of  age.  His  judicial  career 
exceeded  by  ten  years  that  of  Judge  Story  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  by  an  equal  term  that  of  Lord  Mansfield 
in  England.     Few  jurists  have  had  the  good  fortune  to 

79 


be  so  honored  as  Judge  Charles  P.  Daly.  "  The  illus- 
trious career  of  Judge  Samuel  Nelson  reached  to 
within  a  few  months  of  a  full  half  century  of  service, 
but  embraced  his  term  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  as  well  as  that  in  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  State  of  New  York."  These  words  are  quoted  from 
an  address  made  by  Mr.  William  Allen  Butler,  at  a 
meeting  of  the  bar  held  in  the  Court  on  Dec.  30th,  1885, 
the  last  day  of  Judge  Daly's  official  life.  The  call  to 
this  meeting  was  signed  not  only  by  Mr.  Butler,  but  by 
David  Dudley  Field,  Clarence  A.  Seward,  F.  R.  Cou- 
dert,  James  C.  Carter,  Joseph  H.  Choate,  Elihu  Root, 
John  L.  Cadwallader,  John  W.  Sterling,  Charles  C. 
Beaman,  and  many  others  of  equal  prominence.  Ex- 
President  Chester  A.  Arthur  presided.  The  meeting 
was  thronged.  Addresses  were  made  by  Mr.  Butler, 
Mr.  Field,  the  late  Judge  O 'Gorman,  and  others.  An 
extended  account  of  this  meeting  appears  elsewhere  in 
this  volume. 

In  the  evening  a  banquet  was  given  at  Delmonico's 
to  the  retiring  Chief  Justice.  It  was  unparalleled  in 
the  sense  that  it  was  given  by  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme 
and  Superior  Courts,  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  the 
Court  of  General  Sessions  and  the  Recorder  and  the 
Surrogate.  The  guests,  with  two  exceptions,  were  all 
Judges.  Twenty-eight  sat  at  the  table.  The  excep- 
tions were  the  clerks  of  the  Common  Pleas  and  of  the 
Superior  Courts,  Messrs.  Nathaniel  Jarvis,  Jr.,  and 
Thomas  Boese. 

Judge  Daly  has  been  noted  for  the  suavity  of  his  man- 
ner, the  lucidity  of  his  style,  the  integrity  of  his  life, 
his  activity,  industry  and  thorough  knowledge  of  the  law. 

80 


He  has  written  much,  has  been  connected  with  many 
organizations,  varying  in  their  range  from  the  Friendly 
Sons  of  St.  Patrick  to  the  American  Geographical 
Society,  over  both  of  which  bodies  he  has  presided  as 
president,  and  is  to-day  a  member  of  the  Union,  the 
Century,  and  other  clubs,  and  is  as  active  as  many  of 
those  who  are  much  his  junior  in  years. 

The  degree  of  LL.  D.  was  conferred  on  him  by  Colum- 
bia College  in  i860. 

His  published  works  are:  The  Ancient  Feudal  and 
the  Modern  Banking  System  Compared;  The  Judicial 
Tribunals  of  New  York  from  1693  to  1848;  The  Settle- 
ment of  the  Jews  in  North  America ;  History  of  the 
Surrogate's  Court  of  New  York;  Naturalization,  its 
past  History  and  its  Present  State ;  Biographical  Sketch 
of  Gulian  C.  Verplanck;  Barratry,  Its  Origin,  History 
and  Meaning  in  the  Maritime  Law ;  Origin  of  Corpora- 
tions for  the  Promotion  of  the  Useful  Arts;  The  Jews  of 
New  York;  Sketch  of  Henry  Peters  Gray,  the  Artist; 
When  was  the  Drama  Introduced  in  America;  Early 
History  of  Cartography  or  What  we  Know  of  Maps  and 
Map-making  before  the  time  of  Mercator;  Biographical 
Sketch  of  Charles  O'Conor;  Are  the  Southern  Priva- 
teersmen Pirates;  History  of  Physical  Geography;  Have 
we  a  Portrait  of  Columbus;  Is  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
Involved  in  the  Controversy  Between  Venezuela  and 
Great  Britain;  Wants  of  a  Botanical  Garden  in  New 
York,  and  many  speeches  and  lectures  with  cases 
argued  and  determined  in  the  New  York  Court  of 
Common  Pleas,  in  16  Vols.,  the  labor  of  which  under  his 
supervision  has  been  mainly  performed  by  Ephraim  A. 
Jacob,  now  a  Justice  of  the  Court  of  Special  Sessions  of 

81 


the  City  of  New  York.  A  portrait  of  Judge  Daly, 
painted  by  Daniel  Huntington,  hangs  in  what  was  the 
Court  room  of  the  General  Term  6f  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas. 


82 


LEWIS  B.  WOODRUFF,  LL.D. 


THE  HONORABLE  LEWIS  B.WOODRUFF,  LL.D. 

Lewis  B.  Woodruff,  sixth  Judge  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas,  was  born  in  Litchfield,  Conn.,  June 
19th,  1809.  He  was  educated  in  the  Morris  Academy 
at  Litchfield,  and  entered  Yale  College,  where  he  was 
graduated  with  high  honors  in  the  class  of  1830.  Dur- 
ing his  course  he  displayed  great  proficiency  in  mathe- 
matics, which  was  in  after  life  his  favorite  pastime. 
At  the  famous  Law  School  in  Litchfield,  under  the 
instruction  of  Judge  Gould,  he  laid  the  foundation  of 
the  scholarly  learning  which  so  distinguished  his  judicial 
career,  and  on  completing  his  studies  in  1832  he  was 
admitted  to  the  Bar  of  Connecticut.  He  soon  after 
came  to  New  York  City,  and  formed  a  partnership  with 
Hon.  Willis  Hall,  which  continued  until  1836.  He 
afterwards  became  associated  with  Mr.  George  Wood, 
then  at  the  head  of  the  bar,  and  Mr.  Richard  Goodman, 
under  the  style  of  "  Woodruff  &  Goodman." 

In  1849  he  was  elected  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas,  to  succeed  Hon.  Michael  Ulshoeffer,  and 
held  that  office  for  six  years,  1850-185  5.  Among  his 
associates  were  Daniel  P.  Ingraham,  Charles  P.  Daly 
and  John  R.  Brady,  and  during  his  term  he  gave 
notable  construction  to  the  Code  and  Mechanic's  Lien 
law,  then  both  new. 

At  the  close  of  his  term  of  office  in  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas  he  was  elected  Judge  of  the  Superior  Court, 

83 


where  he  had  for  associates  Judges  Oakley,  Duer,  Bos- 
worth,  Hoffman,  Slosson  and  Pierrepont.  This  office 
he  also  filled  for  six  years,  1856-1^61. 

At  the  close  of  this  judicial  term  he  resumed  the 
practice  of  his  profession,  and  the  reputation  he  had  at 
that  time  acquired  attracted  to  him  a  large  and  profit- 
able business.  As  counsel  in  the  trial  of  causes,  he 
was  engaged  in  some  of  the  most  important  cases  of 
the  day.  He  remained  at  the  bar,  associated  as  counsel 
with  Hon.  Charles  F.  Sanford,  and  his  son,  Charles  H. 
Woodruff,  practicing  under  the  firm  name  of  ''Sanford 
&  Woodruff,"  for  six  years,  1862-1867. 

In  January,  1868,  he  was  appointed  a  Judge  of  the 
Court  of  Appeals  to  fill  a  vacancy  occasioned  by  the 
resignation  of  Hon.  John  K.  Porter,  and  held  the  office 
until  the  close  of  the  following  year. 

In  December,  1869,  he  was  nominated  by  President 
Grant  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  to  the  office,  then 
newly  created,  of  Judge  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States  for  the  Second  Judicial  Circuit,  embrac- 
ing the  States  of  New  York,  Connecticut  and  Vermont. 
This  appointment,  urged  with  singular  unanimity, 
spontaneity  and  earnestness  by  the  bar  and  leading 
men  of  the  day,  was  greeted  with  high  enconiums  by 
the  press.  This  office  he  held  until  his  death,  Septem- 
ber loth,  1875. 

His  great  learning,  remarkable  power  of  analysis, 
deep  discernment  and  excellent  judgment  made  him 
invaluable  as  a  counsellor,  while  these  qualities  of  his 
mind,  reinforced  by  habits  of  study  and  industry  and 
sterling  integrity,  insured  his  high  reputation  on  the 
bench  during  his  whole  judicial  career.     So  close  was 

84 


liis  application  that  lie  never  allowed  himself  needed 
rest,  his  study  being  habitually  prolonged  until  late 
into  the  night.  "  He  went  to  the  very  bottom  of  every 
subject  with  which  he  undertook  to  deal.  He  cared 
not  for  a  multiplicity  of  details ;  they  never  clogged  his 
perception  of  a  general  bearing,  and  never  one  of  them 
was  deprived  of  the  exact  degree  of  weight  to  which  it 
was  relatively  entitled.  Law  was  to  him  what  music 
or  art  is  to  some  natures ;  it  engrossed  him,  and  was  a 
province  in  which  he  moved  a  king  and  a  master."  In 
the  expression  of  his  legal  conclusions  he  was  clear  and 
precise,  and  his  written  opinions  are  models  of  demon- 
stration. 

To  his  mathematical  genius  were  added  mechanical 
skill  and  ingenuity  of  such  high  order,  that  it  was  said 
of  him  that  "a  good  mechanic  was  lost  when  he  studied 
law."  This  talent  was  developed  at  an  early  age,  and 
his  boyhood  home  contained  many  labor-saving  devices, 
evidences  of  his  inventive  skill.  In  after  life  this  fitted 
him  to  deal  with  the  cases  of  admiralty  and  particularly 
of  patent  law,  which  formed  so  large  a  part  of  his  duties 
as  Circuit  Judge. 

Dignified  in  his  bearing,  and  exacting  the  respect 
which  was  his  due,  he  was  in  the  family  circle  tender 
and  affectionate,  everywhere  generous,  kind  and  help- 
ful. An  appearance  of  austerity  on  the  bench  but 
masked  the  kindness  and  gentleness  of  his  heart.  Him- 
self laborious,  painstaking  and  exhaustive,  he  had  little 
patience  with  indifference  and  negligence  in  the  per- 
formance of  duty  in  others. 

Devoted  to  his  home  and  home  joys,  genial  and  cor- 
dial, he   was  the  delight  of  the  social  circle,  and  his 

85 


loving  welcome,  hospitable  board  and  ever  open  door 
kept  warm  hearts  constantly  about  him. 

In  the  summer  of  1875,  broken  in  health,  his  vigor- 
ous mind  and  untiring  energy  having  overtaxed  a  strong 
body,  he  went  to  his  summer  home  in  Litchfield,  and 
there  slowly  but  surely  failed  in  strength,  until  on  the 
loth  day  of  September  he  passed  away,  esteemed, 
revered  and  beloved,  as  few  men  are,  by  all  who  knew 
him. 

His  honors  were  chiefly  professional  and  judicial, 
though  in  i860  he  received  the  honorary  degree  of  Doc- 
tor of  Laws  from  Columbia  College. 

He  began  political  life  as  a  National  Republican, 
continued  with  that  party  under  the  name  of  Free  Soil 
Whig,  and  on  the  formation  of  the  present  Republican 
party  became  and  always  continued  its  firm  friend  and 
supporter. 

Educated  a  Congregationalist,  he  first  became  a  mem- 
ber of  its  communion.  On  removal  to  New  York,  he 
became  connected  with  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
later  transferred  his  church  membership  to  the  Collegi- 
ate Reformed  Protestant  Dutch  Church,  of  which  ^, he 
was  an  elder  and  one  of  the  most  valued  and  trusted 
advisors  of  its  councils. 


86 


THE  HONORABLE  JOHN  R.  BRADY. 

Thomas  S.  Brady,  born  in  Ireland,  was  admitted  to 
the  New  York  Ear  in  1826,  was  a  Justice  of  the  Peace, 
became  an  Alderman  for  the  City  of  New  York  when 
the  office  meant  something  more  than  it  does  to-day, 
was  a  remarkable  linguist,  was  at  one  period  a  teacher, 
teaching  among  others  the  late  Cardinal  McCloskey,  and 
died  in  the  city  of  his  adoption.  His  three  sons  became 
lawyers  and  were  all  remarkable  men.  The  eldest, 
Thomas  Brady,  before  he  attained  distinction  at  the 
bar,  was  appointed  into  the  United  States  Marine  Corps 
and  lived  and  died  an  officer  of  the  navy. 

The  second  son,  James  T.  Brady,  one  of  the  most 
brilliant  of  all  the  members  of  the  New  York  Bar, 
became  Corporation  Counsel  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
and  in  i860  was  the  candidate  for  Governor  of  the 
State  on  the  Hard-shell  or  Pro-slavery  Democratic 
ticket.  It  is  said  of  Mr.  James  T.  Brady  that  he  never 
lost  a  cause  in  which  he  was  before  a  jury  for  more 
than  a  week — for  in  that  time  everything  was  seen 
through  his  eyes. 

John  Riker  Brady,  seventh  Judge  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas,  was  born  in  the  City  of  New  York  in 
1821,  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1842,  and  immediately 
went  into  partnership  with  Mr.  Maurice  and  with  his 
brother,  James  T.  Brady,  the  firm  being  Brady, 
Maurice  &  Brady.     Mr.  Maurice  afterwards  withdrew, 

87 


•and  the  two  brothers  continued  in  business  alone,  until 
the  younger  one  was  called  to  the  bench.  Elected  in 
1855  to  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  Judge  John  R. 
Brady  was  re-elected  in  1869,  and  before  his  second 
term  had  expired  he  was  elected  to  the  Supreme  Bench. 
At  his  second  election  to  the  Common  Pleas  Bench,  he 
received  the  endorsement  of  the  Republicans  and  of  all 
factions  of  the  Democratic  party,  was  unopposed,  and 
consequently  elected  by  an  immense  vote.  At  the 
expiration  of  his  first  term  on  the  Supreme  Court  Bench 
in  1877,  he  again  received  the  unanimous  nomination  of 
all  parties,  and  had  he  lived  but  a  few  months  longer 
would  have  retired,  having  reached  the  constitutional 
age  of  seventy.  His  career  on  the  bench  covered  a 
period  of  over  thirty-five  years.  In  1863,  he  married 
Katherine  Lydig,  daughter  of  Philip  M.  Lydig,  and 
sister  of  the  ^wif e  of  Judge  Charles  P.  Daly,  who  sat 
on  the  bench  of  the  Common  Pleas  for  over  forty  years. 

Judge  Brady  was  one  of  the  best  trial  Judges  known 
in  the  history  of  the  New  York  Bar ;  many  of  his  opin- 
ions attracted  widespread  attention,  and  were  founded 
on  common  sense  and  natural  justice  rather  than  on 
fine  technical  points,  though  he  never  allowed  anything 
to  interfere  with  his  sense  of  duty. 

Judge  Brady  was  a  member  of  many  social  organiza- 
tions, was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Manhattan  Club, 
one  of  the  presidents  of  the  Lambs'  Club,  and  served 
several  terms  as  president  of  the  Friendly  Sons  of  St. 
Patrick. 

He  died  after  an  illness  of  less  than  twenty-four 
hours,  being  afiiicted  with  an  abscess  on  the  brain,  in 


the  Hanover  apartment    house,   in  the  City  of    New 
York,  on  March  i6th  (1891). 

A  portrait  of  Judge  Brady  for  a  period  adorned  the 
Court  room  of  the  General  Term  of  the  Common  Pleas, 
but  on  the  abolition  of  the  Court  was  removed  to  the 
rooms  of  the  Appellate  Division  of  the  Supreme  Court. 


89 


THE  HONORABLE  HENRY  HILTON. 

Henry  Hilton,  eighth  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  was  born  in  October,  1824,  at  Newburgh,  in 
Orange  County,  N.  Y.  His  father  was  Scotch-Irish; 
his  mother,  Janet  Graham,  a  woman  of  singular  intelli- 
gence and  force  of  character,  was  Scotch.  When 
Henry  was  a  small  child  his  father  removed  to  New 
York,  and  was  engaged  in  business  here  until  his  death, 
living  in  Wooster  Street. 

Henry  Hilton  was  the  youngest  of  four  sons,  all  of 
whom  were  bred  to  professional  life.  The  eldest  son, 
James,  was  for  many  years  a  Judge  in  Iowa,  and  is  still 
living,  at  an  advanced  age,  at  Hilton,  Monroe  County, 
Iowa.  The  second  son,  Joseph  Hilton,  became  a 
physician,  and  was  at  one  time  coroner  of  New  York. 
The  third  son,  Archibald,  became  prominent  as  a 
lawyer  in  this  city  early  in  life ,  and  some  of  the  older 
lawyers  at  the  bar  still  speak  of  him  as  the  best  prac- 
titioner they  ever  knew.  He  died  when  a  comparatively 
young  man. 

Henry  Hilton  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1846,  and 
for  some  years  acted  as  Master  in  Chancery.  He  soon 
acquired  an  extensive  and  lucrative  practice,  being  en- 
gaged in  many  important  litigations,  notably  that  in 
which  it  was  sought  to  condemn  the  property  known  as 
"Jones'  Wood  "  for  the  purposes  of  a  public  park.     He 


90 


HENRY  HILTON, 


successfully  resisted  the  attempt  on  behalf  of  the  prop- 
erty-owners. 

In  the  early  fifties  he  married  Miss  Ellen  Banker,  a 
daughter  of  Edward  Banker,  of  Banker  &  Schermer- 
horn,  and  a  sister  of  James  H.  Banker,  who  afterwards 
became  prominent  as  a  financier  and  capitalivSt,  being 
president  of  the  Bank  of  New  York,  and  a  director  in 
the  New  York  Central  Railroad  Company  and  in  many 
other  financial  institutions. 

He  was  elected  a  Judge  of  the  Common  Pleas  in  1857 
by  a  majority  of  about  17,000  over  William  M.  Allen. 
He  edited  the  two  volumes  of  "  Hilton's  Reports,"  cov- 
ering the  period  from  1855  to  i860,  and  the  head-notes 
in  those  volumes  are  still  regarded  as  models  of  concise 
and  accurate  statement.  At  the  end  of  his  term,  he 
resumed  the  practice  of  the  law,  taking  into  partnership 
Douglas  Campbell,  the  son  of  Judge  William  W. 
Campbell  who  in  the  Judge's  youth  had  been  his  senior 
partner,  and  Joseph  Bell,  who  had  been  Assistant 
United  States  District  Attorney  for  the  Southern  Dis- 
trict of  New  York,  and  was  later  appointed  by  Presi- 
dent Arthur  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  for  New 
Mexico,  where  he  died.  Douglas  Campbell  will  be  best 
known  to  posterity  as  the  author  of  ' '  The  Puritan  in 
Holland,  England  and  America,"  a  work  wholly  written 
while  he  was  struggling  against  the  fatal  illness  to 
which  he  finally  succumbed. 

Judge  Hilton  is,  perhaps,  most  widely  known  from 
his  relations  to  Alexander  T.  Stewart.  Mrs.  Hilton 
was  the  cousin  of  Mrs.  Stewart,  and  through  that  rela- 
tionship the  Judge  was  early  brought  into  social  intimacy 
with  Mr.  Stewart,  and  became  his  legal  adviser  before 

91 


he  was  elected  a  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 
After  his  retirement  from  the  bench,  in  addition  to  his 
office  in  the  firm  of  Hilton,  Campbell  &  Bell,  he  also 
had  an  office  in  the  mercantile  house  of  Mr.  Stewart, 
and  continued  in  most  intimate  professional  and  per- 
sonal relations  until  his  death.  Mr.  Stewart,  who  died 
in  April,  1876,  left  him  a  large  legacy  in  his  Will,  and 
Mrs.  Stewart,  shortly  after  her  husband's  death,  at  the 
request  of  her  husband,  as  she  stated,  transferred  to 
Judge  Hilton  all  interest  in  the  mercantile  business. 
Thereupon  Judge  Hilton  wholly  abandoned  his  profes- 
sion and  devoted  himself  to  mercantile  pursuits.  He 
is  one  of  the  very  few  who,  after  being  trained  to  and 
passing  many  years  in  a  profession,  have  been  success- 
ful men  of  business.  He  continued  in  mercantile  busi- 
ness until  about  1883  when  he  was  succeeded  by  his 
sons,  and  his  son-in-law,  who  have  since  continued  the 
business  under  the  firm  names  of — Sylvester,  Hilton 
&  Co.,  and  Hilton,  Hughes  &  Co.  His  son,  Col.  Albert 
B.  Hilton,  is  now  the  head  of  the  firm. 

Judge  Hilton  has  a  splendid  country  seat  at  Sara- 
toga, known  as  Woodlawn  Park.  It  consists  of  about  a 
thousand  acres,  and  has  something  like  fifteen  miles 
of  wooded  drives  which  are  thrown  open  to  the 
public,  greatly  adding  to  the  attractions  of  that  famous 
resort. 

Judge  Hilton  was  always  noted  for  his  self-reliance, 
mental  and  physical  energy,  and  great  rapidity  of 
thought  and  action.  While  somewhat  active  in  politics 
he  has  never  been  an  aspirant  for  political  honors  nor  a 
seeker  for  popularity.  He  belongs  to  the  Cen- 
tury,   the    Press    and  New   York  Clubs;    and  his  re- 

92 


ligious  affiliations  are  with  the    Protestant   Episcopal 
Church. 

He  has  three  sons  living,  Edward  B.,  Henry  G.,  and 
Albert  B.  Hilton;  and  two  daughters,  Cornelia,  the 
wife  of  John  M.  Hughes,  and  Josephine  H.,  the  wife  of 
Judge  Horace  Russell. 


93 


THE  HONORABLE  ALBERT  CARDOZO,  LL.D. 

Albert  Cardozo,  LL.D.,  ninth  Judge  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas,  was  born  in  Philadelphia,  December 
2ist,  1828. 

While  yet  a  child  he  was  brought  to  the  City  of  New 
York.  His  parents  being  poor,  he  was  obliged  to  leave 
school  at  an  early  age,  and  to  depend  on  his  own  exer- 
tions. Determining  upon  the  law  as  a  profession,  he 
was  admitted  to  the  bar  soon  after  attaining  his  majority 
in  1849.  He  was  successful  in  his  practice,  and  in  the 
Autumn  of  1863,  when  less  than  thirty-five  years  of  age, 
was  elected  to  the  Bench  of  the  Common  Pleas.  He  re- 
signed from  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  in  1867,  to  take 
the  nomination  for  the  Supreme  Court,  to  which  he  was 
elected,  and  took  his  seat  on  the  first  of  January,  1868. 

When  a  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Judge  Cardozo 
was  accused  of  complicity  with  the  Tweed  ring,  but  the 
widely  agitated  investigation  was  dropped  upon  his 
resignation.  Instead  of  leaving  New  York,  as  it  was 
generally  understood  that  he  would  do,  he  presently 
became  active  again,  both  at  the  bar  and  in  politics. 

In  1874  he  formed  a  partnership  with  Richard  S. 
Newcomb,  and  in  1878  was  made  a  member  of  the 
General  Committee  of  Tammany  Hall,  and  shortly 
afterward  was  elected  Sachem  of  Tammany  Society. 

Judge  Cardozo  died  in  the  City  of  New  York  on 
November  8th,  1885. 

94 


HOOPER  C.   VAX  VORST,   LL.D. 


THE  HONORABLE  HOOPER  C.  VAN  VORST, 

LL.D. 

Hooper  C.  Van  Vorst,  LL.  D. ,  tenth  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas  was  born  in  Schenectady,  in  the  State 
of  New  York,  on  December  3d,  181 7. 

He  was  graduated  at  Union  College  in  1839,  and 
immediately  after  graduation  began  the  study  of  law  in 
his  native  town.  In  1841  he  removed  to  Albany,  was 
admitted  to  the  bar  and  shortly  afterwards  appointed 
by  the  municipal  board  attorney  and  counsel  to  the  city, 
which  office  he  held  for  several  years.  Coming  to  the 
City  of  New  York  in  1853,  he  soon  acquired  a  large 
practice.  In  1868  he  was  appointed  by  Gov.  Fenton 
Justice  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  and  served  on 
that  bench  for  one  year.  In  187 1  he  was  elected  for  a 
full  term  of  fourteen  years  to  the  Bench  of  the  Superior 
Court  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

During  a  large  part  of  his  connection  with  the  latter 
Court,  however,  acting  under  the  appointment  of  the 
Governor  of  the  State,  Judge  Van  Vorst  sat  in  the 
Supreme  Court. 

A  strict  Presbyterian,  Judge  Van  Vorst,  soon  after 
he  came  to  New  York,  united  with  the  Fifth  Avenue 
Presbyterian  Church,  then  under  the  pastorate  of  Dr. 
James  W.  Alexander,  but  now  for  many  years  under 
the  charge  of  Rev.  Dr.  John  Hall. 

Besides  being  identified  v/ith  the  local  church,  he  was 

95 


a  Commissioner  for  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  to  the 
General  Assembly  in  May,  1883,  at  Saratoga,  and  was 
for  many  years  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Foreign  Mis- 
sions and  a  Trustee  of  the  Children's  Aid  Society  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  He  was  also  one  of  the 
founders  of  the  Holland  Society  and  was  its  president 
for  several  years. 

Judge  Van  Vorst  was  noted  for  his  sincerity,  for  his 
simplicity  of  manners,  for  his  warm  and  constant  friend- 
ships, and  for  his  active  sympathy  with  charitable  and 
religious  concerns.  His  judicial  course  was  character- 
ized by  learning,  impartiality  and  inflexible  adherence 
to  the  law. 

The  degree  of  LL.D.,  was  conferred  upon  Judge 
Van  Vorst  by  Union  College. 

He  was  twice  married  and  left  surviving  him  a  widow 
and  several  children.  His  son  Frederick  B.  Van  Vorst 
is  now  engaged  in  the  practice  of  law  in  New  York  City. 

Judge  Van  Vorst  died  in  New  York  City  on  October 
26th,  1889. 


96 


GEORGE  C.   BARRETT. 


THE  HONORABLE  GEORGE  C.  BARRETT. 

Though  yet  in  the  prime  of  life,  considerably  under 
sixty  years  of  age,  Judge  Barrett  has  already  passed 
nearly  thirty  years  of  his  active  life  upon  the  bench. 
Elected  Civil  Justice  at  the  age  of  twenty-five,  identi- 
fied for  nearly  two  years  with  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  he  is  now  (1896)  serving  the  eleventh  year  of  his 
second  term  as  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

George  Carter  Barrett,  eleventh  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,  was  bom  in  Ireland,  July  28,  1838., 
His  father  was  the  Rev.  Gilbert  Carter  Barrett,  a 
clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England  who,  soon  after 
the  birth  of  his  son  became  a  missionary  to  the  Indian 
tribes  of  Canada.  His  grandfather,  Lieut.  John  Carter 
Barrett,  was  an  officer  in  the  English  army  during  the 
Napoleonic  wars  and  was  awarded  a  medal  for  bravery 
on  the  field  of  Waterloo. 

Judge  Barrett  began  his  education  in  London,  West 
Canada,  afterwards  attending  the  Columbia  Grammar 
School  in  New  York  City  from  whence  he  entered 
Columbia  College.  He  left  college  at  the  end  of  fresh- 
man year  and  began  the  study  of  law.  At  this  period 
he  in  large  part  supported  himself  by  engaging  in 
various  literary  ventures,  writing  serials,  short  stories, 
and  novels  and  contributing  to  newspapers  articles  on 
topics  of  current  interest. 

After  his  admission  to  the  bar  he  practiced  for  sev- 

97 


eral  years  with  success,  but  in  1863  was  elected  Justice 
of  the  Sixth  Judicial  District  and  from  that  year, 
excepting  for  a  short  intermission,  1871-72,  has  been 
continuously  identified  with  our  judiciary. 

During  this  period,  1871-72,  Judge  Barrett  became 
strongly  identified  with  state  and  national  politics.  He 
was  president  of  the  Young  Men's  Municipal  Reform 
Association  in  its  memorable  contest  against  the  Tweed 
ring.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Committee  of  Seventy 
of  that  time,  and  in  association  with  Messrs.  A.  R. 
Lawrence,  Francis  C.  Barlow,  and  Wheeler  H.  Peck- 
ham,  acted  as  its  counsel.  He  was  also  counsel  for  John 
Foley  in  his  celebrated  injunction  suit  against  the  ring. 

Judge  Barrett  was  married  on  November  30,  1865,  to 
Miss  Gertrude  Fairfield,  a  daughter  of  Sumner  Lincoln 
Fairfield,  the  poet  and  literateur. 

Elected  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  in  1869, 
after  a  service  of  nearly  two  years,  more  accurately, 
one  year  and  nine  months,  he  resigned  with  the  inten- 
tion of  resuming  the  active  practice  of  the  profession. 
In  187 1,  however,  he  was  elected  Judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court  for  the  term  of  fourteen  years,  and  was  again  in 
1885,  re-elected  for  another  full  term  of  fourteen 
years. 

Identified  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  with  the 
Supreme  Court,  although  at  all  times  possessed  of 
unusual  political  power  yet  unsullied  in  reputation 
either  as  man,  lawyer,  or  judge,  it  is  not  an  unfitting 
tribute  that  Judge  Barrett  should  be  one  of  the  original 
seven  members  of  the  Appellate  Division  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  First  Judicial  District  of  the 
State  of  New  York. 

98 


FREDERICK  W.   LOEW. 


THE  HONORABLE  FREDERICK  W.   LOEW. 

Frederick  William  Loew,  twelfth  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,  was  born  in  Alsace,  December  20, 
1834,  and  when  about  three  years  of  age  was  brought 
by  his  parents  to  the  United  States. 

His  ancestry  on  both  sides  sprang  from  old  Alsatian 
stock  residing  in  Strasburg  in  Alsace.  Many  of  them 
occupied  high  social  and  political  positions  in  their 
ancestral  city  and  other  parts  of  France. 

When  about  sixteen  years  old  he  lost  his  father, 
Frederick  J.  Loew,  and  was  left  with  his  mother  and 
four  younger  brothers.  He  was  educated  in  English, 
French,  and  German  schools  of  New  York  City. 

Having  artistic  tastes  of  a  high  order  he  determined 
to  adopt  engraving  as  a  profession,  and  accordingly 
studied  under  one  of  the  most  talented  engravers  in 
the  city.  He  applied  himself  so  industriously  to  his  art 
and  attained  such  proficiency,  that  before  he  was 
twenty  years  old  he  received  two  silver  medals  and  a 
handsome  edition  of  Webster's  dictionary  for  works  of 
his  exhibited  at  the  American  Institute  and  other  expo- 
sitions. The  dies  for  medallions,  etc.,  exhibited  at  the 
American  Institute,  was  announced  as  having  been  cut 
and  exposed  by  him  expressly  for  the  competition  and 
he  carried  off  the  highest  prize  for  the  same  as  against 
the  works  of  some  of  the  most  celebrated  engravers  of 
the  country. 

99 


His  close  application  however,  and  the  habit  of  con- 
stantly stooping  over  his  artistic  work,  had  seriously 
impaired  his  health,  and  by  advice'  of  his  physician  he 
undertook  a  journey  South. 

Being  a  passenger  on  board  the  ill-fated  steamer  ' '  Cres- 
cent City,"  he  was  shipwrecked  on  the  Bahama  banks  on 
December  7,  1855,  and  after  two  nights  and  days  of 
privation  was  finally  taken  from  the  wreck  by  a  wreck- 
ing schooner  to  the  island  of  Nassau.  He  sailed  from 
thence  to  Havana,  and  later  to  New  Orleans,  where  for 
some  time  he  was  seriously  ill.  The  excitement  and 
hardship,  however,  had  called  out  all  the  latent  energy 
of  his  system,  and  thus  what  was  at  first  supposed 
would  prove  fatal  tended  to  his  recovery. 

Returning  home,  he  was  obliged  to  choose  a  more 
active  profession  than  art  and  entered  upon  the  law. 
After  holding  a  position  as  a  law  clerk  in  the  sheriff's 
office  for  a  time,  devoting  his  leisure  to  professional 
study,  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  i860.  From  the 
start  his  practice  was  attended  with  success;  his 
specialty  was  the  examination  of  titles  to  real  estate  and 
conveyancing. 

In  the  fall  of  1863,  he  was  elected  by  a  large  majority 
for  a  term  of  six  years,  Justice  of  the  Fifth  Judicial 
District  Court  of  New  York  City,  comprising  the  Sev- 
enth, Eleventh,  and  Thirteenth  Wards.  Under  his 
able  and  faithful  management  the  business  of  the  Court 
increased  steadily  from  year  to  year,  as  is  shown  by  the 
official  records. 

In  the  spring  of  1867  he  was  chosen  by  the  electors 
of  the  Twelfth  Assembly  District  as  a  member  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of   1867-68,   in  the  work  of 


100 


which  body  he  took  an  active  part.  In  November, 
1869,  he  was  appointed  by  Governor  Hoffman  Judge  of 
the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  to  fill  the  unexpired  term 
of  Hon.  George  C.  Barrett,  resigned,  and  at  the  gen- 
eral election  in  the  same  month  was  chosen  by  a  large 
popular  vote  for  a  full  term  of  six  years,  commencing 
January  i,  1870. 

As  Justice  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  Judge 
Loew  made  good  his  highly  creditable  record  in  former 
offices,  and  tried  many  notable  and  difficult  cases  with 
marked  ability  and  impartiality.  His  decisions  were 
very  seldom  reversed  by  the  Court  of  Appeals.  In 
October,  1875,  he  was  appointed  by  Governor  Tildento 
hold  a  special  term  for  the  trial  of  jury  causes  in  the 
Supreme  Court. 

In  1875,  he  was  renominated  by  the  Democracy  for 
Justice  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  for  the  term  of 
fourteen  years,  but  owing  to  the  sweeping  victory  of 
the  combination  of  Republicans  and  Independent 
Democrats  which  had  been  made,  he  was  unsuccessful, 
although  he  led  the  entire  ticket  by  several  thousand 
votes,  and  he  therefore  returned  to  active  practice  at 
the  bar. 

In  1877,  after  repeated  refusals,  he  was  finally  per- 
suaded to  accept  the  Democratic  nomination  for  Regis- 
ter of  New  York  City  and  County,  and  notwithstanding 
a  similar  combination  to  that  of  1875  had  been  entered 
into  between  the  Republicans  and  Independent  Demo- 
crats, he  was,  after  a  very  excited  and  closely  contested 
canvass,  elected  by  several  thousand  majority,  serving 
through  the  years  1878-79-80. 

Some  time  after  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  office 

lOI 


his  health,  never  robust,  at  last  gave  way  and  he  was 
obliged  to  discontinue  active  practice  and  seek  relief  in 
travel.  He  has  since  resided  mostly  in  Paris,  making 
occasional  visits  to  New  York  or  traveling  throughout 
Europe  and  the  Orient. 

Judge  Loew  was  careful  and  conscientious.  His 
motto,  ' '  Whatever  is  worth  doing  at  all  is  worth  doing 
well,"  found  ample  expression  in  his  judicial  life.  The 
unqualified,  painstaking,  and  intense  devotion  to  details 
which  won  him  distinction  in  his  first  calling,  charac- 
terized the  whole  of  his  public  life. 

He  was  married  in  New  York  City,  December  19, 
1867,  to  Julia  Augusta,  daughter  of  the  late  Jacob  Van- 
derpoel,  formerly  Dock  Commissioner,  and  a  descend- 
ant of  an  old  Holland  Dutch  family  which  settled  in 
New  Amsterdam  in  the  earliest  days  of  the  colony. 


102 


THE  HONORABLE  CHARLES  H.  VAN  BRUNT. 

Charles  H.  Van  Brunt,  thirteenth  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,  was  born  in  1836,  at  Bay  Ridge,  now 
a  part  of  Brooklyn,  in  a  house  erected  by  one  of  his 
ancestors  and  which  was  until  recently  in  Judge 
Van  Brunt's  possession. 

Prepared  for  college  in  Brooklyn  he  was  graduated 
at  the  University  of  the  City  of  New  York  in  the  class 
of  1856.  After  studying  law  with  the  firm  of  Leonard 
&  Hoffman,  the  head  of  which  was  formerly  Commis- 
sioner of  Appeals  and  a  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court ; 
the  other  partner  being  Hon.  John  T.  Hoffman,  after- 
wards Governor  of  New  York,  he  was  admitted  to  the 
bar  in  i860. 

Judge  Van  Brunt  continued  in  the  office  of  Leonard 
&  Hoffman  for  some  years  as  confidential  clerk  and 
eventually  became  a  partner  in  the  firm,  remaining  in 
the  practice  of  his  profession  until  1869,  when  he  w^as 
appointed  Judge  of  the  Common  Pleas  to  fill  a  vacancy 
caused  by  the  election  of  Judge  Brady  to  the  Supreme 
Court.  While  at  the  bar  he  had  an  active  practice, 
serving  at  one  time  as  counsel  to  the  City  Chamberlain. 
Judge  Van  Brunt,  in  1870,  was  elected  for  the  full  term 
of  fourteen  years  and  served  on  the  bench  of  the  Com- 
mon Pleas  until  1883,  when  he  was  elected  to  the 
Supreme  Court.  Judge  Van  Brunt,  despite  the  dis- 
crepancy in  their  years,  was  an  intimate  friend  of  the 


103 


elder  Judge  Ingraham,  and  has  served  on  the  bench 
with  both  of  the  Judges  Ingraham — father  and  son. 

He  has  been  twice  married,  has  several  children,  and 
is  now  one  of  the  original  seven  members  of  the  Appel- 
late Division  of  the  Supreme  Court  for  the  First  Judi- 
cial District  of  New  York.  He  is  also  one  of  the  coun- 
cil of  the  University  of  the  City  of  New  York.  He  is  a 
member  of  the  Manhattan  and  Lotus  Clubs,  New  York 
Yacht  Club,  and  of  the  St.  Nicholas  Society.  His  only 
son,  Arthur  H.  Van  Brunt,  is  a  practicing  lawyer. 
Judge  Van  Brunt  has  been  conspicuous  for  promptitude, 
energy,  industry,  and  extraordinary  facility  in  dispatch- 
ing business  with  rapidity. 


104 


JOSEPH   F.  DALY,  LL.D. 


THE    HONORABLE    JOSEPH   F.    DALY,    LL.D. 

Joseph  F.  Daly,  fourteenth  Judge  and  last  Chief  Jus- 
tice of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  was  born  December 
3,  1840,  at  Plymouth,  North  Carolina.  His  father  was 
Captain  Denis  Daly,  of  Limerick,  Ireland,  who  having 
been  in  early  life  appointed  purser's  clerk  in  the  British 
navy,  resigned  to  engage  in  the  merchant  service,  built 
and  sailed  his  own  vessels,  and  finally  settled  in  Plymouth 
as  wharfinger,  shipowner  and  merchant,  and  died  in 
1 84 1.  His  maternal  grandfather  was  Lieut.  John 
Duffey  of  the  loist  Regiment,  stationed  in  Montego  Bay, 
Jamaica,  W.  L,  where  the  Judge's  mother  was  bom. 
The  family  removed  to  New  York  in  1849,  and  he  com- 
menced as  law  clerk  with  S.  W.  &  R.  B.  Roosevelt  in 
1855,  and  studied  law  with  them  until  1862,  when  he 
was  admitted  to  the  bar.  On  the  retirement  of  the 
firm  from  business  in  1865  he  succeeded  to  their  prac- 
tice. In  1867,  he  formed  a  co-partnership  with  George 
F.  Noyes,  and  after  the  latter's  death  established  the 
well-known  firm  of  Daly,  Henry  &  Olin.  He  was 
counsel  for  the  Citizen's  Association,  an  organization 
for  municipal  reform,  from  1864  to  1870,  and  was 
attorney  for  the  Chemical  Bank  and  other  prominent 
clients. 

He  became  prominent  as  a  legal  adviser  and  an 
advocate  of  important  measures  of  municipal  reform. 
Among  his  prominent  cases  were  the  prosecutions  of 

105 


public  officials  before  the  Governor  in  1865  (reported  in 
19  Abbott's  Practice  Reps.,  376);  injunctions  against 
waste  by  municipal  officers,  he  having  instituted  the 
first  action  of  the  kind,  with  John  Hecker  as  plaintiff, 
in  1865  (18  Abbott's  Practice  Reps.,  369).  His  pri- 
vate practice  included  important  questions,  among 
them  the  constitutionality  of  legislative  appropriation 
of  private  wharf  property  for  the  canal  district  ^\dthout 
compensation  to  owners  (Roosevelt^.  Goddard,  52  Bar- 
bour's Reps.,  534).  His  practice  from  1862  to  1870 
covered  all  branches  of  the  law.  The  State  Constitu- 
tion of  1869  increased  the  number  of  Judges  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas  from  three  to  six,  and  one  of 
the  nominations  of  the  Democratic  party  was  tendered 
to  and  accepted  by  Mr.  Daly.  His  associates  on  the 
ticket  were  Hamilton  W.  Robinson  and  Richard  L. 
Larremore,  who  were  all  elected  on  May  17,  1870, 
together  with  Charles  H.  Van  Brunt,  who  was  chosen 
to  fill  a  vacancy. 

Thus,  at  the  age  of  twenty-nine  he  began  a  judicial 
career,  which  at  the  present  writing  (1896)  has 
exceeded  a  quarter  of  a  century.  At  the  expiration  of 
his  term  in  1884,  Judge  Daly  was  again  elected  and  by 
a  highly  complimentary  vote,  inasmuch  as  he  and 
Judge  Larremore,  his  associate  on  the  bench,  were  the 
only  successful  candidates  on  the  ticket  on  which  they 
ran.  In  1890,  he  was  chosen  by  his  associates  Chief 
Judge  of  the  Court.  Judge  Daly  is  a  man  of  force, 
industry,  integrity,  and  learning,  noted  for  his  love  of 
literature,  and  his  interest  in  the  drama,  with  which  his 
brother,  Augustin  Daly,  is  connected;  for  his  exquisite 
tastes,  and  especially  for  his  collection  of  rare  prints, 

106 


books  and  pictures.  As  a  Judge  he  is  noted  for 
his  amiable  temper — and  has  ever  preserved  an  un- 
varying dignity  of  demeanor,  alwa3^s  mingled  with 
great  courtesy  and  consideration,  especially  toward  the 
younger  members  of  the  bar.  He  is  a  lucid  reasoner, 
and  one  of  the  most  thoroughly  equipped  lawyers  on 
the  New  York  bench. 

Judge  Daly's  idea  of  the  duties  of  both  bench  and 
bar.  was  laconically  expressed  by  himself  on  the  closing 
of  the  Court  over  which  he  presided  in  what  must  here- 
after be  accepted  as  a  legal  aphorism — "  A  courageous 
bar  makes  an  incorruptible  judiciary." 

It  is  very  remarkable  that  while  Judge  Charles  P. 
Daly  sat  on  the  Common  Pleas  Bench  for  over  forty 
years,  Judge  Joseph  F.  Daly  has  held  the  next  longest 
term  of  the  twenty- three  Judges  identified  with  the 
later  history  of  the  Court.  He  received  the  degree  of 
LL.D.  from  St.  John's  College  at  Fordham  in  1883; 
was  one  of  the  founders  and  incorporators  of  the  Play- 
ers' Club,  with  Edwin  Booth  and  others;  is  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Catholic  Club;  a  member  of  the  Geographi. 
cal  Society,  the  Southern  Club,  the  Friendly  Sons  of 
St.  Patrick;  a  member  of  the  New  York  Law  Institute; 
honorary  member  of  the  Association  of  the  Bar  of  the 
City  of  New  York;  manager  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Orphan  Asylum ;  member  of  the  Advisory  Board  of  St. 
Vincent's  Hospital;  member  of  the  Democratic  Club, 
and  other  social  and  literary  organizations.  By  the 
Constitution  of  1894,  Judge  Daly  was  transferred  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  and,  together  with  Judge  McAdam, 
late  of  the  Superior  Court,  and  Judge  Bischoff,  of  the 


107 


Common   Pleas,    forms  the   Appellate    Term,    which 
reviews  the  decisions  of  the  lower  Courts. 

Judge  Daly  has  been  twice  mahried:  first  in  1873  to 
Miss  Emma  Robinson  Barker,  a  stepdaughter  of  Judge 
Hamilton  W.  Robinson.  She  died  in  1886,  leaving 
three  children.  Second,  in  1890,  to  Miss  Mary  Louise 
Smith,  daughter  of  Edgar  M.   Smith,  of  New  York. 


108 


HAMILTON  W.   ROBINSON. 


THE  HONORABLE  HAMILTON  W.  ROBINSON. 

Hamilton  W.  Robinson,  fifteenth  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,  was  born  in  Albany,  N.  Y.,  Novem- 
ber 25,  1 8 14,  son  of  James  W.  Robinson,  a  prominent 
and  well-known  business  man  of  that  city. 

He  was  educated  at  the  Albany  Academy  and  Union 
College,  being  graduated  A.B.  in  the  class  of  1832. 
Among  his  classmates  were  Alexander  W.  Bradford, 
afterwards  Surrogate  of  New  York  County;  Gilbert M. 
Speir,  late  Judge  of  the  Superior  Court,  and  Lieuten- 
ant-Governor David  R.  Floyd- Jones.  After  gradua- 
tion he  began  the  study  of  law  in  the  office  of  McCown 
&  Van  Buren,  in  Albany,  and  upon  his  admission  to 
the  bar,  became  a  partner  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  who, 
having  been  made  Attorney- General,  appointed  him 
his  deputy.  The  firm  continued  prominent  at  the  bar 
of  Albany  until  their  removal  in  1848  to  New  York 
City,  where  for  the  next  ten  years  they  were  most 
active  and  successful. 

Judge  Robinson's  experience  as  deputy  and  assistant 
to  the  Attorney-General  gave  him  a  practical  knowledge 
of  the  law  of  corporations  and  municipalities  which 
thereafter  became  his  specialty  in  practice. 

Among  their  first  clients  in  New  York  was  Edwin 
Forrest,  whom  they  represented  as  attorneys  in  his 
famous  twenty-year  divorce  suit. 

After  the   termination   of   their  partnership,    Judge 

109 


Robinson  carried  on  his  practice  alone  for  several 
years.  In  that  time  he  acted  as  referee  in  numerous 
important  cases  and  achieved  a  well-deserved  popu- 
larity in  that  capacity.  George  Law  and  John  Kerr, 
the  railroad  magnates,  were  his  clients,  and  in  connec- 
tion with  Charles  O'Conor,  he  played  an  important  part 
in  the  famous  railroad  cases  which  resulted  in  the 
notable  decision  in  People  v.  Kerr,  by  which  the  Sev- 
enth Avenue,  Broadway,  and  Dry  Dock  Railroads  were 
enabled  to  construct  their  lines.  He  was  counsel  for 
these  companies  and  others,  and  continued  as  referee  in 
a  vast  number  of  important  cases,  which  were  referred 
to  him  by  consent  of  parties,  until  his  elevation  to  the 
bench. 

In  1863,  Mr.  Robinson  formed  a  co-partnership  with 
Mr.  John  M.  Scribner  under  the  style  of  Robinson  & 
Scribner,  which  was  continued  for  seven  years. 

Mr.  Robinson  declined  the  Democratic  nomination  to 
the  Judgeship  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  1870  in  favor 
of  his  friend,  Charles  A.  Rapallo,  who  was  consequently 
elected ;  but,  in  the  following  May,  accepted  the  nomi- 
nation to  the  bench  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  to 
which  he  was  elected  for  a  term  of  fourteen  years  and 
six  months,  beginning  July  i,  1870. 

As  a  practitioner.  Judge  Robinson  was  noted  for  his 
painstaking  application  to  the  details  of  a  case,  never 
going  to  trial  with  any  cause  until  he  had  mastered 
every  intricacy  and  provided  against  all  contingencies 
and  difficulties.  He  also  made  a  thorough  study  of  his 
clients'  interests,  and  was  thus  enabled  to  advise  them 
and  provide  for  their  particular  needs  and  wishes  as 
would  a  family  physician  for  a  patient.      In  his  judicial 

no 


capacity  he  showed  deep  legal  scholarship,  and  the 
fairness  and  accuracy  of  his  decisions  were  unques- 
tioned so  exhaustive  and  studied  were  they  in  every 
particular.  He  was  particularly  noted  for  his  patience 
and  urbanity  and  courtesy  to  all  who  approached  him. 

On  the  occasion  of  his  death  the  bench  and  bar  com- 
bined in  sincere  expression  of  their  loss  and  in  tributes 
to  his  memoiy  at  a  special  meeting  called  for  that  pur- 
pose on  April  24,  1879.  (See  proceedings  reported  in  7 
Daly  Reports.)  A  commemorative  tablet  in  his  honor 
has  been  recently  erected  in  the  General  Term  room  of 
the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  in  the  County  Court  House, 
New  York,  of  which  special  mention  will  be  found  in 
another  place.  His  portrait  has  hung  on  the  walls  in 
the  same  room  since  shortly  after  his  death. 

Judge  Robinson  was  twice  married,  first  to  Emma 
Whitney,  of  Albany,  N.  Y.,  who  died  in  1865  at  his 
country  seat  in  Worcester,  Otsego  Co. ,  N.  Y. ;  and  sec- 
ond to  Mrs.  Catherine  D.  Barker,  of  Albany,  who  sur- 
vived him. 

Judge  Robinson  died  in  New  York  City,  April  7, 
1879,  leaving  two  sons  and  two  daughters.  One  of  his 
sons,  Mr.  Henry  A.  Robinson,  is  a  practicing  lawyer, 
and  is  the  attorney  for  the  Metropolitan  Traction 
Company. 


THE  HONORABLE  RICHARD  LUDLOW 
LARREMORE,  LL.D.* 

Richard  Ludlow  Larremore,  sixteenth  Judge  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  was  born  near  Astoria,  L.  I., 
on  September  6,  1830,  and  died  in  this  city  on  Septem- 
ber 13,  1893.  His  descent  in  the  maternal  line  was 
from  the  early  Dutch  settlers  of  New  Netherland.  On 
the  paternal  side  his  ancestry  was  English,  but  long 
resident  on  Long  Island.  He  was  graduated  from 
Rutgers  College  in  1850. 

He  studied  law  with  the  firm  of  Betts  &  Robinson, 
and  on  his  admission  to  the  bar  became  a  partner  of 
Scoles  and  Cooper,  who  were  leading  members  of  the 
admiralty  bar  at  that  time.  The  law  of  real  property 
was  the  branch  to  which  young  Larremore  especially 
devoted  his  attention,  and  he  soon  became  the  counsel 
of  the  Dry  Dock  Savings  Institution,  and  of  other 
clients  who  made  loans  on  real  estate  security.  It  may 
truthfully  be  said'that  he  never  lost  a  client,  and  that 
every  client  became  his  friend  for  life.  The  estimation 
in  v/hich  he  was  held  may  be  learned  from  the  fact  that 
he  was  frequently  solicited  to  act  as  guardian  and 
executor,  positions  that  he  firmly  refused  to  accept. 


*  This  memorial  was  prepared  after  Judge  Larremore's  death  by  his  asso- 
ciate, Judge  George  M.  Van  Hoesen,  and  was  read  bj'  Judge  Van  Hoesen  at 
a  meeting  of  The  Association  of  the  Bar  of  the  City  of  New  York,  held  on 
March  13,  1894. 

112 


RICHARD  L.   LARREMORE,   LL.D. 


A  memorial  of  Chief  Justice  Larremore  would  be 
incomplete  without  a  reference  to  his  long-  and  faithful 
service  to  the  cause  of  public  education.  For  many 
years  he  was  an  active  member  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, and  for  three  years  was  president  of  the  board. 
His  firmness  prevented  that  body  from  falling  under 
the  control  of  the  Tweed  Ring,  and  eiffectually  stopped 
a  bold  attempt  to  apply  to  the  purchase  of  school  sup- 
plies the  methods  that  obtained  in  the  building  of  the 
County  Court  House. 

In  1867  he  was  elected  to  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion by  a  very  flattering  vote,  and  he  took  a  prominent 
part  in  the  debates,  being  especially  well  qualified  to 
speak  on  all  questions  affecting  our  system  of  popular 
education. 

In  1870,  when  the  judicial  force  of  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas  was  increased,  he  was  elected  to  the  bench 
of  that  Court  in  company  with  Hamilton  W.  Robinson 
and  Joseph  F.  Daly.  Charles  H.  Van  Brunt,  who  had 
previously  been  appointed  to  fill  a  vacancy,  was  elected 
a  Judge  of  the  Common  Pleas  on  the  same  ticket. 

Judge  Larremore  left  a  large  practice,  which,  though 
consisting  largely  of  conveyancing,  had  been  sufficiently 
varied  to  equip  him  for  the  duties  on  which  he  entered. 
His  native  quickness  of  apprehension  and  his  ready 
command  of  resources  soon  gave  him  a  recognized 
position  as  a  nisi prius  Judge;  but  in  equity  causes,  for 
which  his  experience  gave  him  special  training,  his 
judicial  work  was  from  the  first  of  a  high  order. 

He  always  had  a  well-defined  sense  of  what  the  law 
ought  to  be  when  a  novel  question  was  suddenly  raised. 
He  had  a  good  memory,  not  for  the  titles,  but  for  the 

113 


essential  principles  of  important  cases,  and  it  was  his 
habit  to  familiarize  himself  with  the  latest  adjudications. 
Though  he  was  very  fortunate  in  handling  cases  where 
no  opportunity  for  an  examination  of  the  authorities 
was  given  to  him,  he  welcomed  the  labor  of  research, 
and  shrank  from  no  toil  that  a  conscientious  desire  to 
reach  the  very  truth  in  the  law  involved.  His  opin- 
ions were  almost  always  brief,  and  though  reversals  fall 
to  the  lot  of  every  Judge  he  was  exceptionally  fortu- 
nate in  the  Appellate  Court. 

A  good  illustration  of  his  judicial  methods  may  be 
found  in  his  opinion  in  Dupre  vs.  Rein,  7  Abb.  N.  C, 
256.  That  case  involved  an  examination  of  the  status 
of  a  tripartite  agreement  between  husband  and  wife  with 
the  intervention  of  a  trustee,  entered  into  after  the 
separation  of  the  wedded  pair.  Citing  many  authori- 
ties he  stated  the  existing  rules  regulating  the  recipro- 
cal duties  and  liabilities  of  the  parties  and  the  methods 
of  enforcing  them,  with  great  conciseness,  but  with  the 
keenest  discrimination.  That  case  has  frequently  been 
cited  and  followed  and  has  received  the  honor  of  special 
mention  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  an  honor  seldom  fall- 
ing to  a  decision  at  vSpecial  Term. 

Though  Chief  Justice  Larremore  never  trimmed  his 
sails  to  catch  the  breeze  of  popular  favor  he  was 
always  a  very  popular  man.  The  courtesy  and  kind- 
ness that  endeared  hirn  to  the  younger  members  of  the 
bar  were  the  offspring  of  a  genial  nature  that  ever 
manifested  itself  in  his  intercourse  with  the  world,  and 
which  won  for  him  golden  opinions  from  all.  He  sat 
in  the  Supreme  Court  by  the  order  of  the  Governor, 
and  grew  in  reputation  whilst  an  incumbent  of   that 

114 


bencli.  His  associates,  on  the  retirement  of  Chief  Jus- 
tice Charles  P.  Daly,  chose  him  as  the  Chief  Justice  of 
the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  In  1869,  the  degree  of 
LL.  D.  was  conferred  upon  Judge  Larremore  by  the 
University  of  the  City  of  New  York. 


"5 


THE  HONORABLE  GEORGE  M.  VAN  HOESEN. 

Sprung  from  one  of  the  oldest  of  our  Dutch  families, 
with  a  distinguished  record  as  a  soldier,  no  greater 
compliment  could  have  been  paid  to  the  legal  abilities 
of  Judge  George  M.  Van  Hoesen,  the  seventeenth  Judge 
of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  than  the  general  regret 
which  was  expressed  by  the  prominent  New  York  jour- 
nals of  all  shades  of  political  opinions,  on  his  retire- 
ment from  the  bench  in  1890. 

Born  in  New  York,  he  was  graduated  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  the  City  of  New  York.  Prominent  in  many 
of  the  under-graduate  organizations,  he  has  since 
graduation  served  as  president  of  the  Alumni  Associa- 
tion. 

He  studied  law  in  the  State  and  National  Law  School, 
then  located  at  Poughkeepsie,  and  for  a  time  was 
an  instructor  there  on  the  subjects  of  pleadings  and  evi- 
dence. Going  to  Davenport,  Iowa,  shortly  after,  he 
began  the  practice  of  the  law  there,  and  so  continued 
until  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  in  1861  when,  forming 
a  company  of  which  he  was  made  captain,  he  was 
attached  to  the  13th  Iowa  Infantry.  Serving  under 
General  Grant  in  Missouri,  and  ascending  the  Tennes- 
see River  with  him  in  1862,  he  was  promoted  to  the 
rank  of  major  for  gallantry  at  the  battle  of  Shiloh,  and 
took  part  in  the  subsequent  capture  of  Vicksburg.  At 
one  time  he  was  provost-marshal  of  the  armies  in  the 

116 


GEORGE  M.   VAN  H(3ESEN. 


field  for  tlie  Department  of  the  Mississippi.  At  the 
close  of  the  war  Major  Van  Hoesen  resumed  the  prac- 
tice of  law  in  New  York  City,  where  his  success  was 
marked. 

Perhaps  the  most  notable  event  connected  with  Judge 
Van  Hoesen's  practice  at  this  period  was  the  fact  that 
in  1866  he  drew  the  first  bill  ever  drawn  for  the  con- 
struction of  an  elevated  railway.  Mr.  Richard  Mont- 
gomery had  invented  a  plan  for  an  aerial  railway. 
Judge  Van  Hoesen  interested  capitalists  in  the  enter- 
prise, but  considering  the  expression  "  aerial  "  a  little 
flighty,  caused  the  proposed  law  to  be  entitled,  *' An 
Act  to  Authorize  the  Construction  of  an  Elevated  Rail- 
way on  Broadway,"  thus  giving  the  name  **  elevated  " 
to  the  system  which  is  so  well  known  to-day.  The  bill, 
which  passed  the  Assembly  by  a  large  majority,  failed 
in  the  Senate,  but  it  was  the  pioneer  of  the  legislation 
that  has  given  to  New  York  the  nearest  approach  to 
rapid  transit.  Upon  the  retirement  of  Judge  Van 
Hoesen,  in  1889,  an  editorial  in  one  of  the  leading 
metropolitan  journals  well  expressed  the  dominant  feel- 
ing at  the  time,  calling  it  a  misfortune  "  that  a  man  of 
his  talents,  kindly  feelings  and  dignified  courtesy  could 
not  have  received  a  renomination." 

After  leaving  the  bench  Judge  Van  Hoesen  resumed 
active  practice.  The  same  care,  industry,  accuracy,  and 
conscientiousness  which  he  exercised  in  the  discharge 
of  his  judicial  duties  have  ever  marked  his  relations  in 
regard  to  his  clients.  Possessed  of  a  wonderful  memory 
he  is  not  only  remarkably  well  versed  in  the  principles 
of  the  law  but  can  always  quote  his  authorities  with 
accuracy   and   promptness.      Of  kindly  nature,  gentle 

117 


and  pleasant  in  his  manners,  upright  in  all  his  relations 
to  life,  honors  have  come  in  abundance  to  Judge  Van 
Hoesen.  He  is  a  trustee  or  the  Holland  Trust  Com- 
pany, was  chairman  for  three  successive  terms  of  the 
Memorial  Committee  of  the  Grand  Army,  of  which  he 
has  long  been  a  comrade  in  La  Fayette  Post  No.  140; 
was  one  of  the  founders  and  has  been  one  of  the  presi- 
dents of  the  Holland  Society.  On  the  organization  of 
the  Zeta  Psi  Club,  in  1882,  he  was  by  acclamation  ten- 
dered its  presidency.  He  is  also  a  member  of  the 
Union  and  Manhattan  Clubs,  the  St.  Nicholas  Society, 
and  of  the  Historical  and  Geographical  Societies. 

Judge  Van  Hoesen  is  unmarried  and  is  still  engaged 
in  the  active  practice  of  his  profession. 


118 


MILES  BEACH. 


THE  HONORABLE  MILES  BEACH. 

More  litigation  came  before  the  Supreme  Court  in 
the  City  of  New  York  than  was  brought  before  either 
the  Superior  Court  or  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  To 
relieve  the  Supreme  Court  Judges  the  Governor  was 
accustomed  to  appoint  one  of  the  Judges  of  the  Supe- 
rior Court  and  one  of  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas  to  sit  on  the  Supreme  Bench.  Judge  Miles 
Beach,  through  frequent  appointments  of  successive 
Governors  to  act  with  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  was  always  more  identified  in  the  popular  mind 
with  the  latter  than  with  the  Court  to  which  he 
had  been  originally  appointed  and  twice  elected  and  of 
which  he  was  one  of  the  last  Judges. 

Son  of  the  late  Hon.  William  A.  Beach,  who  ranked 
with  Charles  O'Conor,  James  T.  Brady,  and  other 
prominent  lawyers  of  the  preceding  generation,  Miles 
Beach,  eighteenth  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  was  born  at  Saratoga  Springs  in  1833.  Soon 
after  his  graduation  at  Union  College  in  1854,  he 
became  associated  with  his  father  in  the  law  firm  of 
Messrs.  Beach  &  Smith,  at  Troy,  N.  Y.  The  law  busi- 
ness of  this  firm  grew  to  such  an  extent  that  in  187 1 
father  and  son  came  to  New  York.  Upon  the  election 
of  Judge  Rapallo  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  the  law  firm 
of  Rapallo,  Daly  &  Brown  was  changed  to  Beach,  Daly 
&  Brown,  with  the  Messrs.  Beach  as  members  of  the 

119 


firm.  Mr.  Daly  retiring,  the  firm  became  Beach  & 
Brown,  and,  acting  as  attorneys  for  Mr.  Jay  Gould 
and  for  some  of  the  Vanderbilts,  had,  for  a  period,  the 
largest  railway  business  in  New  York. 

In  1879,  Governor  Robinson  appointed  Mr.  Beach 
Justice  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  Though  his 
opponents  in  the  election  of  the  following  year  were 
ex-Recorder  Smyth  and  Elihu  Root,  he  was  elected  in 
the  Autumn,  and  again  re-elected  at  the  end  of  his 
term,  in  1893,  for  another  term  of  fourteen  years. 

Judge  Beach  has  been  known  for  many  years  as  one 
of  the  most  cultivated  Judges  of  the  New  York  Courts. 
His  "  opinions"  are  models  of  conciseness.  He  has  a 
notable  faculty  of  expressing  his  conclusions  in  half  the 
space  usually  required  by  others. 

By  the  Constitution  of  1894  Judge  Beach  was  perma- 
nently transferred  to  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court. 


120 


HENRY  WILDER  ALLEN. 


THE    HONORABLE    HENRY   WILDER  ALLEN. 

Henry  Wilder  Allen,  nineteenth  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,  was  born  at  Alfred,  Maine,  October 
1 8,  1833.  He  was  a  son  of  the  Hon.  William  Cutter 
Allen,  a  lawyer  by  profession,  and  for  many  years 
Judge  of  Probate  for  York  County,  Maine;  and 
the  grandson  on  his  maternal  side,  of  Henry  Holmes,  a 
native  of  Kingston,  Mass. ,  a  graduate  of  Brown  Univer- 
sity, and  an  active  member  of  the  bar  for  many  years 
at  Alfred,  Maine. 

Prepared  for  college  at  the  schools  of  his  native 
town  he  was  duly  graduated  at  Dartmouth  College, 
New  Hampshire,  with  the  class  of  1856. 

While  an  under-graduate  he  became  an  active  mem- 
ber in  one  of  the  more  noted  Greek  fraternities,  a  fact 
which  doubtless  did  much  to  develop  those  social  quali- 
ties which  rendered  Judge  Allen  so  popular  in  after 
life. 

He  taught  in  Alfred  Academy  for  a  little  while  after 
leaving  college,  but  soon  coming  to  New  York  became 
a  clerk  in  the  office  of  Hon.  Nelson  J.  Waterbury. 
When  the  latter  became  District  Attorney  for  the  City 
of  New  York  Mr.  Allen  followed  his  chief  and  became 
a  clerk  in  the  District  Attorney's  office.  The  friend- 
ship between  the  two  men  so  ripened  that  when  Judge 
Waterbury  returned  to  private  practice  he  and  Mr. 
Allen  became  partners  under  the  firm  name  of   Water- 

121 


bury  &  Allen,  Mr.  Allen  in  tlie  meantime  having  been 
admitted  to  the  bar.  ^ 

Subsequently,  through  the  recommendation  of  United 
States  District  Judge  Samuel  Blatchford,  Mr.  Allen 
was  appointed  by  Chief  Justice  Salmon  P.  Chase,  one 
of  the  registrars  in  bankruptcy  in  the  City  of  New- 
York.  He  filled  this  office  so  satisfactorily  that  upon 
the  recommendation  of  Mr.  Hubert  O.  Thompson  he 
was  appointed  by  Governor  Cleveland,  in  1884,  Judge 
of  the  Court  of  the  Common  Pleas  of  the  City  of  New 
York.  In  the  following  Autumn  he  was  elected  for  the 
full  term  of  fourteen  years. 

Popular,  well  educated,  a  good  companion,  he  was  in 
all  his  dealings  noted  for  his  scrupulous  honesty.  Exact 
in  his  own  relations  with  those  with  whom  he  was 
brought  in  contact,  he  compelled  the  same  exact- 
itude in  his  subordinates.  Possessed  of  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  details  as  well  as  of  human  nature  and  of 
the  niceties  of  life,  he  served  for  many  years  as  Chair- 
man of  the  House  Committee  of  the  Manhattan  Club 
with  great  satisfaction,  not  only  to  those  who  knew 
him  personally,  but  to  the  entire  membership  of  that 
institution. 

While  leaving  the  Court  House,  he  was  seized  with 
a  paralytic  stroke,  and  his  untimely  death  at  the  Cham- 
bers Street  Hospital,  after  several  days*  illness,  in  1891, 
•cut  him  off  in  the  full  plentitude  of  his  powers. 


HENRY  W.   BOOKSTAVER,   LL.D. 


THE  HONORABLE  HENRY   W.   BOOKSTAVER, 

LL.D. 

Henry  W.  Bookstaver,  twentieth  Judge  of  tlie  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,  was  born  in  Orange  County,  New 
York,  in  1835.  He  is  the  son  of  Daniel  Bookstaver 
and  a  direct  descendant  of  Jacobus  Buchstabe,  or 
Boochstaber,  who  emigrated  from  Switzerland  early  in 
the  eighteenth  century  and  became  an  extensive  owner  of 
real  estate  in  Orange  County.  The  original  form  of 
the  family  name  signifies  "book-stick,"  a  wooden  letter 
such  as  was  first  used  in  printing — or  denotes  one  en- 
gaged in  the  printing  of  books.  The  family  was  a 
noted  one  in  the  old  country;  two  brothers,  Henry  and 
Johannes  Buchstabe,  being  prominent  on  opposite 
sides  in  the  theological  struggles  of  the  middle  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  It  is  from  Henry,  who  espoused 
the  reformed  religion,  that  the  Judge  is  descended. 

Judge  Bookstaver  was  graduated  with  honors  at 
Rutgers  College,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.,  in  1859,  and 
immediately  entered  the  office  of  Brown,  Hall  &  Van- 
derpoel.  He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1861,  and 
shortly  afterwards  was  taken  as  a  partner  into  the  firm 
with  which  he  had  studied. 

He  became  successively  sheriff's  attorney,  counsel  to 
the  Police  Board,  and  counsel  to  the  Commissioners  of 
Charities  and  Corrections.  His  defence  of  Sheriff 
Reilly  established  his  reputation,  not  so  much  for  legal 

123 


acumen — for  he  already  had  that — as  for  forensic  elo- 
quence. In  1885  he  was  raised  to  t^e  bench  by  a  large 
plurality  over  Judge  Paterson  and  Theron  G.  Strong. 
During  twenty-five  years  at  the  bar  he  enjoyed  an 
extensive  practice  covering  all  branches  of  the  law,  and 
had  acquired  a  perfect  familiarity  with  every  question 
likely  to  arise  at  a  trial  term.  He  has  also  been  keenly 
interested  in  the  study  of  scientific  and  general  topics 
of  interest;  being  a  member  of  the  Archaeological,  His- 
torical and  Geographical  Societies  of  New  York  City; 
of  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  and  the  American 
Museum  of  Natural  History;  the  Botanical  Garden 
Society  and  various  other  scientific  and  literary  organi- 
zations. His  training  was,  therefore,  such  as  has 
come  to  few  of  our  Judges,  and  his  ability  as  a  trial 
Judge  is  reckoned  among  the  highest  on  the  bench  of 
New  York  Courts.  He  is  noted  for  the  clearness  of 
his  methods  of  presenting  facts,  his  power  to  inspire 
confidence  and  his  unfailing  courtesy. 

Socially,  Judge  Bookstaver  enjoys  wide  popularity, 
and  is  a  member  of  the  Manhattan,  Casino,  New  York 
and  Zeta  Psi  Clubs,  and  of  the  St.  Nicholas  and  Huge- 
not  Societies,  all  of  New  York  City.  He  is  a  member 
of  the  governing  body  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church, 
the  second  richest  religious  corporation  in  the  city. 

The  degree  of  LL.D.  was  conferred  on  him  by  Rut- 
gers College  in  1888. 

He  was  married  in  1865  to  Miss  Mary  Baily  Young, 
daughter  of  Charles  Young,  of  Hamptonburg,  Orange 
County,  N.  Y. 

By  the  Constitution  of  1894  Judge  Bookstaver  was 
transferred  to  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

124 


HENRY  BISCHOFF,  JR. 


THE  HONORABLE  HENRY  BISCHOFF,  Jr. 

Henry  Bischoff,  Jr.,  twenty-first  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,  was  born  in  1852  in  the  City  of  New 
York.  Nearly  one  hundred  years  ago,  his  paternal 
grandfather  was  a  church  builder  in  Germany,  but  sub- 
sequently engaged  in  the  business  of  a  lumber  merchant 
and  brick  manufacturer  at  Achim  in  the  kingdom  of 
Prussia,  where  his  descendants  still  carry  on  the  busi- 
ness he  established.  His  father,  Mr.  Henry  Bischoff, 
has  been  a  banker  in  the  city  of  New  York  for  upwards 
of  forty-nine  years. 

The  son  entered  his  father's  office,  but  later  deter- 
mined upon  a  professional  career.  He  read  law,  was 
graduated  at  the  Columbia  College  Law  School  in 
187 1,  and  at  the  same  time  secured  "honorable  men- 
tion "  from  the  Department  of  Political  Science. 
Being  at  graduation  but  nineteen  years  of  age,  he  was 
not  admitted  to  the  bar  till  November,  1873,  when, 
devoting  himself  to  civil  causes,  he  succeeded  so  well 
that  in  June,  1889,  he  became  the  attorney  to  the  Tax 
Department,  and  in  the  following  November,  1890, 
was  elected  a  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 

Judge  Bischoff  is  a  director  of  the  Oratorio  Society, 
and  of  the  Union  Square  Bank.  He  is  a  member  of 
the  German  Society,  the  New  York  State  and  American 
Bar   Associations,    the     Manhattan    and    Democratic 


125 


Clubs,    and   the   Liederkranz,    Arion,    Beethoven  and 
Maennerchor  Societies. 

His  moral  courage,  his  self  reliance,  his  independence 
of  character,  his  firm  adherence  to  the  right  cause  have 
rendered  his  decisions  more  than  usually  acceptable  to 
the  bar.  Though  one  of  the  youngest  Judges  on  the 
bench,  he  has  already  become  noted  for  his  industry, 
his  uniform  courtesy,  and  the  soundness  of  his 
decisions.  Judge  Bischoff  was  married  in  October,  1873, 
to  Miss  Annie  Louise  Moshier,  daughter  of  Frederick 
and  Louise  Moshier.  They  have  one  child,  a  daughter, 
Loula,  born  May  13,  1876.  Transferred  by  the 
Constitution  of  1894  to  the  Supreme  Court,  he,  to- 
gether with  Judges  Joseph  F.  Daly  and  McAdam, 
composes  the  Appellate  Term  which  hears  all  appeals 
from  the  decisions  of  the  lower  Courts. 


126 


ROGER  A.   PRVOR.   LL.D. 


THE  HONORABLE  ROGER  A.  PRYOR,  LL.D. 

Roger  Atkinson  Pryor,  twenty-second  Judge  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  editor,  diplomat,  statesman 
and  soldier,  son  of  the  Rev.  Theodoric  Pryor,  who  was 
known  for  over  half  a  century  as  an  eloquent  and  emi- 
nent Presbyterian  clergyman,  was  born  in  Dinwiddie 
County,  Virginia,  in  1828.  He  was  graduated  at 
Hampden-Sidney  College,  took  several  schools  at 
the  Universit)^  of  Virginia;  was  admitted  to  the  bar; 
entered  journalism,  was  editor  of  the  Soiithside  Demo- 
crat at  Petersburg,  of  the  Washington  Unioji,  and  of 
the  Richmond  Enqui^'er;  was  appointed  in  1855  on  a 
special  mission  to  Greece  by  President  Pierce,  and,  on 
his  return  in  1856,  attracted  great  attention  through 
his  opposition  to  Mr.  William  L.  Yancey's  plans  for  the 
re-opening  of  the  slave  trade.  He  was  elected  to  the 
National  Congress  in  1857,  and  re-elected  in  1859. 
Upon  the  secession  of  his  State,  he  became  a  member 
of  the  provisional  Confederate  Congress  and  subse- 
quently of  the  first  regular  Confederate  Congress.  He 
was  in  turn  colonel,  brigadier-general  and  private,  for 
when  political  reasons  had  induced  him  to  resign  his 
commission  as  brigadier-general,  he  immediately  re-en- 
listed as  a  private  in  the  Confederate  army.  Taken 
prisoner  in  1864,  he  was  confined  in  Fort  Lafayette. 

After  the  war.  Gen.  Pryor  removed  to  New  York, 
determined  to  devote  himself  to  the  legal  profession. 

127 


He  was  obliged,  however,  to  begin  his  studies  anew, 
and  was  at  the  time  thirty- five  ^earsof  age,  without  for- 
tune, having  the  responsibility  of  a  large  family,  and 
settled  among  strangers. 

While  studying  law,  he  supported  his  family,  by 
writing  for  the  press.  Admitted  to  practice  he  soon 
became  recognized  in  the  profession.  He  was  engaged 
in  some  of  the  most  important  causes  of  the  time,  includ- 
ing the  Beecher  trial,  the  Elevated  Railroad  cases,  the 
divorce  suit  of  Governor  Sprague,  of  Rhode  Island,  and 
was  of  counsel  with  Gen.  Butler  in  all  the  Sprague 
Estate  litigations,  and  also  in  the  suit  in  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court  to  recover  the  New  York  &  New 
England  Railroad  for  its  original  stockholders.  Gen. 
Pryor  defended  Governor  Ames  on  his  impeachment 
by  the  Legislature  of  Mississippi.  In  the  controversy 
between  Mr.  Tilton  and  Mr.  Beecher,  Gen.  Pryor  was 
retained  by  the  former.  He  made  the  argument  before 
the  General  Term  of  the  City  Court,  and  before  the 
Court  of  Appeals,  resisting  the  granting  to  the 
defendant  of  a  bill  of  particulars  as  well  as  the  argu- 
ment before  Judge  Neilson  in  favor  of  the  competency 
of  Mr.  Tilton  as  a  witness,  In  both  these  contests, 
Gen.  Pryor  was  opposed  by  Mr.  William  M.  Evartsand 
his  arguments  gave  him  celebrity  as  a  profound  and 
accomplished  lawyer. 

The  honors  conferred  upon  Gen.  Pryor,  were  culmi- 
nated when  he  was  appointed  in  the  latter  part  of 
1890  by  Governor  Hill  to  the  bench  of  the  Common 
Pleas,  and  this  was  made  the  occasion  of  a  remarkable 
compliment  in  the  form  of  a  banquet  at  the  Astor 
House,    New  York,  given  in  Judge  Pryor's  honor  by 

128 


the  Hon.  John  Russell  Young.  At  this  banquet  were 
assembled  about  fifty  guests,  including  President 
Cleveland,  Chauncey  M.  Depew,  judges,  lawyers, 
clergymen,  eminent  physicians,  prominent  merchants, 
military  men,  editors  of  all  creeds  and  of  all  stripes  of 
political  belief,  thus  rendering  a  magnificent  testi- 
monial to  the  position  in  New  York  which  Judge  Pr}^or 
had  reached  in  the  face  of  the  most  pronounced  obstacles, 
and  while  combating  conditions  which  might  reason- 
ably have  defeated  his  ambition  and  his  hope. 

Perhaps  one  of  the  most  curious  facts  concerning 
Judge  Pryor  is  that  his  legal,  political  and  military 
record  have  overshadowed  the  position  to  which  his 
scholastic  training  entitles  him.  A  man  of  thought  as 
well  as  a  man  of  action,  he  stood  at  the  head  of  his 
class  when  he  was  graduated  at  Hampden-Sidney  in 
1845,  and  has  since,  some  ten  years  ago,  received  from 
his  Alma  Mater  the  highest  honor  which  she  could 
give,  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Laws.  The  University 
of  Virginia,  which  has  never  granted  honorary  degrees, 
has  made  him  one  of  her  Board  of  Visitors.  Elected  in 
November,  1890,  for  the  full  term  of  fourteen  years, 
Judge  Pryor  was,  by  the  Constitution  of  1894,  trans- 
ferred in  1896  to  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court. 


129 


THE  HONORABLE  LEONARD  A.  GIEGERICH. 

Leonard  A.  Giegerich,  twenty- third  Judge  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  was  born  in  Rotz,  Bavaria, 
May  2oth,  1855,  and  was  brought  to  this  country  when 
scarcely  more  than  one  year  old.  He  was  educated  at 
the  public  schools,  the  St.  Nicholas  parochial  school  and 
the  De  La  Salle  Institute,  N.  Y.,  but  from  the  age  of 
twelve  he  was  obliged  to  earn  his  own  livelihood.  He 
studied  law  and  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1877.  He 
was  elected  to  the  State  Assembly  in  1886,  and  in  1887 
was  appointed  by  President  Cleveland  Collector  of 
Internal  Revenue  for  the  Third  New  York  District. 
Governor  Hill  in  1890,  appointed  him  to  a  vacancy  on 
the  City  Court  Bench,  caused  by  the  death  of  Judge 
Nehrbas.  Though  it  was  generally  thought  that  Judge 
Giegerich  would  receive  the  Democratic  nomination 
for  the  full  term  as  City  Court  Judge,  political  exigen- 
cies decreed  differently.  It  was  deemed  wise  to 
strengthen  the  local  ticket  among  the  Germans.  Judge 
Giegerich  again  in  1890,  and  much  against  his  will,  was 
nominated  and  elected  County  Clerk.  He  held  this 
office,  one  of  the  most  remunerative  in  the  Courts,  until 
the  following  Autumn,  when  he  resigned  to  accept  tlie 
appointment  by  Governor  Hill  to  fill  a  vacancy i-'on  the 
bench  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  caused  by  the 
sudden  death  of  Judge  Allen.  Both  political  parties 
placed  him  in  nomination  in  1892,  to  succeed  himself, 

130 


LEONARD  A.   GIEGERICH. 


and  he  was  elected  for  the  full  term  of  fourteen  years. 
He  was  also  elected  a  member  of  the  recent  Constitu- 
tional Convention. 

As  a  member  of  Assembly,  his  record  was  warmly 
endorsed  by  the  Reform  Club  of  New  York.  He  was 
one  of  the  two  members  who  persistently  refused  all 
passes  from  railway  corporations. 

As  County  Clerk  he  introduced  many  reforms  which 
relieved  wants  long  felt  by  practicing  lawyers.  Dur- 
ing his  incumbency  of  the  County  Clerkship,  he 
endeared  himself,  probably  without  the  least  intention, 
to  all  historians  b}^  the  classifying  of  musty  records, 
200  years  old  that  had  been  stored  for  years  in  the 
Court  House. 

Always  attentive  to  duty,  he  has  required  the  same 
attention  from  those  under  him,  and  has  thus  earned 
the  reputation  of  a  disciplinarian. 

Though  the  youngest  Ji»dge  on  the  Common  Pleas 
Bench,  his  record  was  most  satisfactory  to  both  the  bar 
and  the  public,  and  he  has  rapidly  acquired  a  reputa- 
tion as  one  of  the  best  trial  Judges  of  our  time. 

Judge  Giegerich  was  married  in  1887  to  Miss  Louise 
M.  Boll,  of  New  York  City,  and  they  have  had  several 
children. 

By  the  Constitution  of  1894  Judge  Giegerich  was 
transferred  to  the  Supreme  Court. 


131 


THE    NEW   ORGANIZATION    OF    THE  COURT 
OF  COMMON  PLEAS,  JULY  i,  1870. 

The  amended  New  York  State  Constitution  of  1869 
provided  for  the  election  of  three  additional  Judges  of 
the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  In  pursuance  of  this 
provision,  Hamilton  W.  Robinson,  Joseph  F.  Daly  and 
Richard  L.  Larremore  were  chosen  as  such  Judges 
at  the  election  in  the  city  of  New  York  held  in  May, 
1869. 

According  to  the  statute  they  were  to  enter  upon  the 
duties  of  their  office  on  the  first  of  July,  1870.  The 
oath  of  office  was  administered  to  them  at  noon.  The 
ceremony  took  place  in  the  large  room  of  the  trial  term. 
Part  I.  of  the  Common  Pleas.  At  the  appointed 
hour  all  the  seats  and  standing  places  were  occupied, 
mainly  by  Judges  and  members  of  the  bar. 

Among  those  who  occupied  seats  upon  the  platform, 
in  addition  to  the  Common  Pleas  Judges,  were  Judge 
Woodruff,  of  the  United  States  Court;  Judges  Bos- 
worth,  Mitchell,  Henry  E.  Davies,  late  Chief  Justice  of 
the  Court  of  Appeals;  Pierrepont,  Slosson,  Vanvorst, 
Judge  Brady,  of  the  Supreme  Court;  Messrs.  Chas. 
O 'Conor,  Peter  Cooper,  Smith  Barker,  J.  W.  Gerard, 
Judges  Jones,  Fithian  and  Freedman,  of  the  Superior 
Court;  Henry Nicoll,  N.J.Waterbury andWm.M.Evarts. 
Among  those  present  beside  these,  were  notably : 
Messrs.  Luther  R.    Marsh,  Augustus  F.   Smith,  A.  J, 

132 


Vanderpoel,  Algernon  S.  Sullivan,  Henry  Brewster, 
Jesse  K.  Furlong,  Frank  Byrne,  Amos  G.  Hull,  Henry 
Morrison,  Mr.  Devine,  Wm.  H.  Ingersoll,  D.  Marvin, 
J.  M.  Scribner,  Wm.  Edelsten,  Dennis  McMahon, 
Frederick  Smythe,  Clarence  A.  Seward,  Mr.  Pinckney, 
Mr.  Spink  and  Justice  Quinn. 

Chief  Justice  Chas.  P.  Daly  administered  the  usual 
oath  of  office  to  the  three  new  Judges  severally,  after 
which  he  announced  that  in  consequence  of  the  addi- 
tional number  of  Judges  in  that  Court,  some  alterations 
had  been  made  in  the  rules,  which  would  be  made 
known  to  the  bar  in  due  time. 

ADDRESS    OF    MR.     J.    W.    GERARD. 

Mr.  James  W.  Gerard  then  addressed  the  audience  at 
some  length.  He  had,  he  said,  never  been  a  Judge; 
no  politician  or  lawyer  had  ever  thought  of  making  him 
one,  though  why  he  did  not  know.  He  had  for  a  long 
time  believed  that  he  possessed  some  of  the  attributes 
of  a  Judge.  The  speaker  gave  a  history  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,  from  the  time  when,  more  than  200 
years  ago,  this  same  Court  was  known  as  the  Court  of 
the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Sheriff  of  New  Amsterdam. 
This  Court  was  the  oldest  one  in  the  State.  Peter 
Stuyvesant  was  one  of  the  first  Judges.  In  that  day 
the  Court  was  always  opened  with  prayer.  (The  speaker 
here  read  the  prayer  used  upon  such  occasions  and  pro- 
nounced it  to  be  a  model  prayer  in  its  simplicity 
and  purity  of  thought. )  In  those  days  they  did  what  we 
have  finally  concluded  to  do — that  is,  allow  all  parties 
to  be  witnesses  for  themselves  in  both  civil  and  crim- 
inal cases.     They  had  juries  then,  but  the  Dutchmen 

133 


did  not  like  that  system  much^  and  generally  preferred 
to  have  their  causes  heard  before  a  Judge.  Peter  Stuy- 
vesant,  he  said,  authorized  the  first  fee  bill  in  New 
York.  His  doctrine  was  that  lawyers  should  "serve 
the  poor  gratis  for  God's  sake."  We  make  it  up  in 
charging  the  rich  man.  Within  a  hundred  yards  of 
the  Court  House,  Mr.  Gerard  said,  he  had  seen  a  man 
tied  to  the  whipping  post  and  whipped  according  to  a 
judicial  decision,  for  an  offense  committed  in  the  post- 
office.  Sometimes  they  put  the  offenders  in  the  stocks 
and  threw  rotten  eggs  at  them.  In  1665,  the  name  was 
changed  to  the  Mayor's  Court,  and  so  continued  for 
about  160  years,  or  until  about  the  year  182 1,  when  it 
was  altered  to  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  The 
speaker  recited  a  long  list  of  names  of  those  who  had 
occupied  seats  on  the  bench  of  the  Common  Pleas,  and 
also  those  who  were  prominent  practioners  at  its  bar. 
Among  them  he  mentioned  DeWitt  Clinton,  the  father 
of  the  Erie  Canal ;  Cadwallader  Colden,  Col.  Willett, 
Samuel  Jones,  the  grandfather  of  a  Judge  now  on  the 
Superior  Court  Bench;  Matthew  Livingston,  Pierre  C. 
Van  Wyck,  Josiah  Ogden  Hoffman,  Richard  Riker, 
John  T.  Irving,  brother  of  Washington  Irving,  the 
poet ;  Martin  S.  Wilkins,  Elisha  W.  King,  Gen.  Robert 
Bogardus,  David  Graham,  Jr.,  and  John  Leveridge.  The 
address  of  Mr.  Gerard  was  delivered  in  his  usually 
humorous  vein,  and  was  frequently  relieved  by  anec- 
dotes. 

ADDRESS    OF    MR.     AUGUSTUS    F.     SMITH. 

Mr.   A.   F.    Smith  spoke   of  the  Court   of  Common 
Pleas,  since  he  commenced  to  practice  in  it,  a  little  more 

134 


than  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago.  The  bar  must  recol- 
lect that  this  Court,  during  the  last  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury, was  a  very  different  tribunal  from  what  it  was 
during  the  times  of  which  Mr.  Gerard  had  spoken.  In 
those  early  days,  there  was  only  one  Judge.  The  Court 
could  not  be  held  more  than  two  days  at  one  term,  nor 
could  there  be  more  than  four  terms  in  a  year,  and  only 
eight  attorneys  were  allowed  to  practice  in  the  Court. 
He  spoke  of  Judge  Irving,  who  for  seventeen  years  was 
a  Judge  of  this  Court,  and  who  for  fourteen  years  of 
that  time  was  the  sole  Judge.  He  did  not  propose  to 
compare  him  with  his  brother,  Washington  Irving. 
What  lawyer  was  there  whose  name  will  be  known  in 
future  generations  except  in  the  way  of  anecdote  and 
legend  ?  At  the  meeting  of  the  bar  recently  held 
in  regard  to  the  death  of  Mr.  F.  B.  Cutting,  he  heard  it 
stated  that  the  deceased  owed  his  great  success  to 
friends  and  family  influence,  who  enabled  him  suddenly 
to  reach  the  height  of  his  profession.  The  speaker 
wished  to  say  to  the  young  members  of  the  bar  that  he 
did  not  believe  any  man  ever  achieved  success  at  the 
bar  by  means  of  friends.  Something  was  undoubtedly 
due  to  circumstances,  but  it  must  be  by  honesty,  indus- 
try, perseverance,  and  a  faithful  discharge  of  duty  to 
clients,  that  any  success  worth  retaining  can  be  attained 
in  the  legal  profession. 

Mr.  Luther  R.  Marsh  was  the  next  and  last  speaker. 

ADDRESS    OF    MR.     LUTHER    R.     MARSH. 

I  suppose  I  may  consider  myself  commissioned 
to  unite  with  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken, 
in  virtue  of  having  represented  the  first  cause   which 

135 


appears  in  the  regular  series  of  the  reported  cases  in 
this  Court — a  cause  in  which  no  one  else  survives  of  the 
parties,  attorneys,  counsel  or  witnesses,  though  only- 
fifteen  years  have  since  elapsed.  The  people  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  as  well  as  of  the  city,  let  us  hope, 
have  good  cause  to  congratulate  themselves  on  the 
changes  just  wrought  in  their  judicial  system  by  the 
amended  Constitution.  Among  them,  the  lengthened 
tenure  of  office  is  a  decided  improvement — reaching,  as 
now  established,  to  about  half  a  generation — more  than 
half  of  what  may  fairly  be  considered  the  average  busi- 
ness life  of  man.  This  makes  the  judgeship  a  sort  of 
life-work ;  and  while  Judges  are  men,  with  considerable 
human  nature  in  them,  it  must  necessarily  induce  a 
feeling  of  greater  security  and  a  more  absolute  inde- 
pendance  of  judgment.  Among  these  changes,  the 
new  features  engrafted  upon  this  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  for  the  City  and  County  of  New  York — by  which 
its  numerical  power  is  doubled — and  it,  no  longer 
dependent  on  legislative  will,  has  struck  the  flukes  of 
its  anchor  into  the  Constitution  itself.  The  ceremony 
we  witness  this  day  is  one  of  great  significance.  It  is 
not  merely  the  usual  result  of  an  election ;  filling  im- 
portant offices  either  with  former  incumbents  or  a  new 
personality.  It  is  not  the  retirement  of  certain  men 
from  judicial  stations  they  had  occupied,  and  the 
advance  of  other  men  to  supply  the  vacancy.  If  it 
were  that,  and  only  that,  it  would  be  an  imposing  cere- 
mony. The  smooth  and  peaceful  change  of  power, 
from  hand  to  hand,  is,  of  itself,  a  sublime  event.  The 
advent  of  a  new  priest  at  the  altar;  of  a  new  represen- 
tative of  justice ;  of  one  who  is  to  stand  with  absolute 

136 


impartiality,  between  contending  litigants;  who  is  to 
see  that  wantonness  and  selfishness  do  not  override 
j  ustice  and  right,  to  hold,  with  steady  nerve,  those  hal- 
lowed scales,  which  shall  weigh  to  each  applicant  his 
due,  and  shall  pronounce  all  forms  of  injustice,  wanting, 
in  the  balance;  to  guard  the  doctrines  settled  by  the 
Courts,  so  that  uniformity  shall  be  maintained,  and 
men  may  know  the  standard  by  which  their  rights  and 
duties  are  to  be  squared,  to  enforce  the  will  of  the 
whole  people  as  expressed  in  the  enactments  of  their 
Legislature — such  an  inauguration  is  an  event  ever  to 
be  regarded  with  interest.  But  this  is  all  that,  and 
something  more.  It  is  an  enlargement  of  the  altar 
itself.  It  is,  in  effect,  adding  a  new  Court  of  equal 
power  and  jurisdiction  to  the  one  already  existing.  It 
is  launching  anew  with  enlarged  capacities,  and  age 
renewed,  this  ancient  and  most  useful  Court,  the  oldest 
judicial  tribunal  in  our  State,  which  begun  its  life  of 
toil  and  duty,  though  under  another  name,  two  hun- 
dred and  five  years  ago,  this  just  retreating  month  of 
June ;  which  saw  this  great  city  of  ours  in  its  struggling 
youth,  and  whose  roots  are  deep  and  firm  in  the  primal 
soil  of  our  own  liberty.  An  interesting  epoch,  there- 
fore, in  the  history  of  this  Court,  do  we  behold  this  day. 
Of  the  many  changes  of  added  or  diminished  function 
which  have  occurred  in  its  organization  during  the  last 
two  centuries,  this  is  not  the  least.  But  though  it 
enters  this  day  on  a  new  career — let  us  believe  for  yet 
other  centuries  to  come — and  though  most  of  the  pres- 
ent and  now  newly  inaugurated  ministers  of  its  power 
are  untried  to  its  bench,  though  not  to  its  bar,  yet  does 
not,  nor  will  this  tribunal  seem  strange  to  its  habitual 

137 


practioners,  as  long  as  he,  who  as  more  intimately  iden- 
tified with  the  Court  than  any  of  his  predecessors,  and 
to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  biography  of  the 
Court  itself,  continues  to  be  a  participant  in  its  author- 
ity. Of  those  who  have  enunciated  the  law  from  this 
seat,  some  have  departed  to  the  Grand  Assize :  Edward 
Livingston,  De  Witt  Clinton,  Jacob  Radcliffe,  Col. 
Marinus  Willett,  Cadwallader  D.  Colden,  John  T.  Irv- 
ing and  William  Inglis.  Others  have  been  transferred 
to  other  tribunals,  where  they  are  now  at  work :  Michael 
Ulshoeffer,  to  the  quiet  but  efficient  administration 
of  the  Referee's  office;  Daniel  P.  Ingraham,  Albert 
Cardozo  and  John  R.  Brady  to  the  Supreme  Court; 
and  Lewis  B.  Woodruff,  first  to  the  Superior  Court, 
then  to  the  Court  of  Appeals,  and  now  to  the  Federal 
Judiciary;  while  yet  others,  Henry  Hilton,  Hooper  C. 
Van  Vorst,  and  George  C.  Barrett,  have  returned  to 
the  forum,  to  invoke  the  very  powers  they  wielded  from 
its  bench.  But  the  Presiding  Judge  remains  faithful  to 
his  first  love;  and  that  familiar  form,  which,  for  twen- 
ty-six years,  has  occupied  this  bench  may  be  seen  there 
still.  Let  it  be  our  prayer  and  hope  that  this  honora- 
able  Court,  venerable  by  its  days,  but  fresh  in  its  vigor, 
may  ever  boast  as  able  and  upright  Judges  in  the  com- 
ing years,  as  in  the  past,  and  preserve  its  ermine  as 
immaculate,  that  it  may  still  hold  in  order  the  surging 
interests  of  this  commercial  community,  and  that  it 
may  continue  to  rear  and  educate  advocates  in  its  arena, 
who,  like  Emmet,  Jay  and  Samson,  of  a  former  day, 
and,  more  recently,  like  Brady,  so  lately  gone,  and 
Cutting,  yesterday  laid  at  his  rest,  shall  add  to  its  use- 
fulness, its  honor  and  its  renown. 

138 


PROCEEDINGS    ON   THE   DEATH    OF   JUDGE 
HAMILTON  W.  ROBINSON,  APRIL  24,  1879. 

The  next  proceedings  of  any  especial  moment  on  the 
part  of  the  bar  of  the  City  and  County  of  New  York  in 
connection  with  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  took 
place  on  Thursday,  April  24,  1879,  ^^  ^^^  Court  House 
New  York  City.  On  that  day  a  meeting  of  the  bench  and 
bar  was  held  to  commemorate  the  life  and  services  of 
the  Honorable  Hamilton  W.  Robinson,  who  died 
April  7,  1879,  during  his  term  of  office  as  Judge  of  the 
Court.  Chief  Justice  Charles  P.  Daly  presided 
over  the  meeting.  The  vice-presidents  were  the 
Honorables  Noah  Davis,  George  C.  Barrett,  Gilbert 
M.  Speir,  John  Sedgwick,  William  G.  Choate,  John  K. 
Porter,  Stephen  D.  Law,  John  R.  Brady,  A.  R.  Law- 
rence, Hooper  C.  Van  Vorst,  J.  J.  Freedman,  Charles 
O'Conor,  William  A.  Beach,  Charles  Donohue,  William 
E.  Curtis,  Charles  F.  Sanf ord,  Samuel  Blatchf ord,  David 
Dudley  Field,  Lucien  Birdseye. 

The  secretaries  were:  Messrs.  John  M.  Scribner, 
James  J.  Thomson,  Douglass  Campbell  and  James  T. 
Law. 

Resolutions  eulogizing  Judge  Robinson  were  passed 
at  the  meeting  and  ordered  to  be  entered  on  the 
minutes  of  the  Court.  Addresses  were  made  by 
Messrs.  A.  J.  Vanderpoel,  Luther  R.  Marsh;  by  ex- 
Judge  Lucien  Birdseye  and  Judges  Hooper  C. 
Van  Vorst  and  Charles  P.  Daly. 

139 


ADDRESS    OF    MR.     A.     J.^  VANDERPOEL. 

We  have  met  to  pay  respect  to  the  memory  of  the 
late  Hamilton  W.  Robinson.  While  this  tribute  is  due 
to  his  character  as  a  lawyer  and  as  a  Judge,  it  is  also  a 
tribute  and  token  of  our  respect  and  affection  for  him 
as  a  man. 

For  nine  years  he  has  been  a  member  of  the  bench 
of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  the  City  and  County 
of  New  York.  Thirty  years  of  hard  labor  and  varied 
practice  at  the  bar  had  thoroughly  fitted  him  for  this 
position,  from  which  an  all-wise  Providence  has  removed 
him  in  the  prime  of  life  and  season  of  usefulness.  He 
was  justly  noted  for  the  patient  study  and  careful  pre- 
parations of  his  cases,  and  every  question  likely  ta 
arise  was  fully  investigated  and  brought  to  the  test  of 
his  well-balanced  mind.  In  his  bearing  he  was  diffi- 
dent and  unobtrusive;  in  his  friendships,  cordial  and 
sincere.  As  a  Judge  he  always  remembered  ' '  that  a 
Judge  must  never  be  allow  himself  to  be  warped  or 
trammelled,  and  must  ever  maintain  the  free  employ- 
ment of  a  watchful  and  unbiased  mind." 

Mr.  Vanderpoel  then  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tions : 

Resolved^  That  by  the  death  of  Judge  Hamilton  W. 
Robinson,  we  have  lost  one  who  was  an  honor  to  the 
judiciary  and  to  our  profession.  His  urbanity  of  man- 
ner while  at  the  bar  and  on  the  bench,  his  sincerity  of 
heart  and  faithfulness  to  duty  had  endeared  him  to  us; 
while  his  learning,  probity  and  justice  command  for 
him  universal  respect.  We  cherish  pleasant  recollec- 
tions of  his  well-spent  life,  and  revere  his  memory 
as  an  able  and  upright  Judge. 

140 


LUTHER   R.  MARSH. 


Resolved,  That  the  proceedings  of  this  meeting  be 
presented  to  the  Court  of  which  Judge  Robinson  was  a 
member,  with  the  request  that  they  be  entered  upon 
its  minutes. 

ADDRESS    OF    MR.   LUTHER    R.   MARSH. 

Mr.  President  : — In  rising  to  second  the  resolutions 
presented  by  Mr.  Vanderpoel,  which  so  truly  deplore 
our  loss,  a  few  additional  words  may  not  be  out  of 
place. 

So  rapid  are  the  changes  in  our  bar ;  such  a  tide  of 
new  practitioners  is  constantly  poured  into  it  from  all 
sections  of  the  nation,  that  there  are  many  here,  no 
doubt,  who  have  only  known  him — whose  loss  has 
called  us  together — in  his  office  as  a  Judge. 

There  are  some  present — among  them  his  class-mates 
Judge  Speir  and  Samuel  Campbell — whose  memories 
hold  the  slender  form  of  a  beaming  and  studious  youth 
at  college;  ambitious  of  honor,  free  from  any  evil 
habits,  and  on  terms  of  cheerful  amity  with  all  his  co- 
collegiates. 

Some,  too,  here,  remember  him,  when  afterwards 
graduated  from  college,  and  from  a  counsellor's  office, 
he  had  taken  rank  as  a  lawyer  at  Albany,  where  there 
were  centered  many  men  famous  in  the  records  of  the 
bar. 

Some  too,  remember  him  when,  seeking  a  wider 
field,  he  encountered  the  hazards  of  a  removal  to  this 
city,  where  only  courage,  effort  and  pertinacity  could 
secure  a  foothold,  and  by  his  modest  sign  announced 
that  he  would  give  his  time  and  labor  to  those  who 
should  intrust  their  interests  to  his  hands. 


Ut 


He  returned,  temporarily,  to  -Albany  to  officiate  as 
deputy  attorney-general  under  Mr.  Van  Buren;  and, 
subsequently,  they  united  in  partnership,  and  so  for 
many  years  continued  in  New  York,  where  a  clientage, 
large  in  volume  and  responsible  in  character  and 
amount,  grew  up  around  them ;  numbering  in  its  list 
George  Law,  and  the  great  and  varied  interests  he 
controlled. 

The  services  of  almost  every  lawyer  are,  at  one  time 
or  another,  called  into  use  as  a  mutually  selected 
arbiter;  and  for  this  Judge  Robinson  developed  such  a 
special  adaptation  that  he  became,  and  was  several 
years,  our  most  active  and  prominent  referee — thus  be- 
coming especially  educated  to  the  duties  of  the  office  he 
was  subsequently  to  fill.  The  proportion  of  causes  dis- 
posed of  by  referees  is  very  large ;  and  they  are  often  of 
the  most  troublesome  and  complex  kind,  involving  many- 
itemed  accounts,  which  a  jury  cannot  try.  The  referee 
unites  in  himself  the  functions  of  juror  and  Judge; 
and,  but  for  him,  I  do  not  see  how  the  Courts  could 
keep  abreast  of  the  accumulated  business  of  the  time. 
Of  these  referees,  as  I  have  said,  Judge  Robinson  was, 
in  his  day,  the  most  conspicuous;  and  such  quantities 
of  references  flocked  to  his  office,  either  by  mutual 
consent  or  the  compulsory  orders  of  the  Courts,  that  he 
might  often  be  seen  presiding  at  the  trial  of  two,  three, 
and  even  four  causes  at  the  same  time — walking  through 
his  ample  rooms  to  the  various  tables,  and  disposing  of 
questions  of  pleading  and  evidence  as  he  passed. 

Judge  Robinson,  when  he  came  to  the  bench,  had 
well  withstood  the  strain  of  his  professional  labors. 
He  was,  I  believe,  in  perfect  health.     It  is  a  question 

142 


of  some  moment  whether,  if  he  had  remained  at  the 
bar,  he  would  not  now  have  been  living  and  in  full 
capacity.  So  many  of  our  judiciary  have  become 
impaired  in  health,  that  it  suggests  a  very  serious 
inquiry  as  to  the  cause.  Comes  the  trouble  from  the 
over-breathed  air  of  crowded  rooms,  or  from  the  per- 
petual and  unrelieved  stress  of  judicial  duties — pecu- 
liarly responsible  and  exhausting — or  from  the  jomt 
effect  of  both  ? 

And  yet  it  would  not  seem  to  be  safe  to  deduce  any 
general  principle  from  a  limited  range  of  facts;  for  on 
that  very  bench  in  which  this  sad  vacancy  occurs,  there 
presides  a  jurist  who  has  administered  at  its  shrine  for 
more  than  a  generation;  who  has  carried  on  besides, 
immense  concurrent  labors;  who  has  gathered  and 
recorded  the  annals  of  that  historic  Court;  who  has 
been  ever  ready  to  take  part  in  all  public  meetings  and 
aid  in  all  public  enterprises ;  who,  by  his  wise  devo- 
tion to  geographic  science,  has  made  his  name  famil- 
iar and  respected  over  the  world,  and  yet,  who  still 
bears  the  evidence  of  health  undiminished  and  vigor 
unimpaired. 

It  was  a  pernicious  habit — induced  by  his  sensitively 
nervous  organization  and  the  anxieties  of  his  office — 
which  used  to  drive  our  departed  friend,  at  midnight, 
from  his  bed  to  his  table,  when  many  of  his  opinions 
were  written  and  revised.  He  must  possess  a  large 
original  stock  of  vitality  whose  constitution  can  long 
sustain  the  drafts  upon  it  required  by  the  intense  and 
varied  application  of  the  daytime  in  our  city  practice, 
and  carry  protracted  labor  into  the  night  besides.     An 


143 


habitual  encroachment  on  the  domain  and  jurisdiction 
of 

"Tired  Nature's  sweet  restorer — balmy  sleep," 

is,  sooner  or  later,  sure  to  be  avenged. 

He  was  a  faithful  and  concentrate  worker.  But  not- 
withstanding the  remarkable  facility  with  which  he 
wrote,  he  used  to  revise  and  re-revise  till  his  manu- 
script opinions  almost  required  a  Champollion  to 
decipher  them.  I  have  been  reminded,  sometimes, 
while  puzzling  over  his  manuscripts,  of  a  paper  I  saw 
when  a  student  at  Utica.  There  was,  in  the  office  of 
the  late  Charles  A.  Mann,  a  chest  of  historical  docu- 
ments left  by  Richard  Varick.  Amongst  them,  a 
draft  petition  to  Congress,  by  Baron  Steuben,  for  some 
additional  aid,  as  I  remember  it.  It  was  in  the  hand- 
writing of  Alexander  Hamilton — whose  pellucid  style 
vindicates  his  renown  as  a  writer — from  whom,  by  the 
way,  our  late  friend  derived  a  portion  of  his  name — and 
its  erasures  and  interlineations  evinced  that  it  was  not 
struck  off  at  white  heat,  and  at  a  blow ;  that  it  did  not 
drop  without  labor  from  the  nibs  of  the  pen;  but  had 
received  many  a  careful  revision  and  correction. 

It  was,  however,  in  his  social  relations — in  the  com- 
pany of  his  family  and  friends — that  Robinson  was  king. 
His  supremacy  there  was  affectionately  acknowledged. 
It  is  believed  that  he  never  lost  a  friend ;  rather,  he 
bound  them  to  him  with  enduring  cords.  Some  of  his 
boyhood  and  college  classmates  have  kept  up  with  him, 
through  the  vicissitudes  of  life,  the  most  intimate 
relations;  and  we  may  only  witness  the  afflicting  sor- 
row they  express,  to  know  how  supremely  he  reigned  in 
the  domain  of  the  affections. 

144 


His  great  pleasure  was  to  spend  the  Summers  on  his 
ancestral  acres  at  Worcester,  in  the  County  of  Otsego, 
where  he  dispensed  a  charming  and  bountiful  hospi- 
tality. He  dreamed  in  his  illness  that  the  crisp  air  of 
the  Otsego  hills — resinous  with  the  delicious  odor  of 
the  woods — would  renew  his  strength,  like  the  eagle's; 
and  that  could  he  but  touch  his  mother  earth,  he  would, 
Antaeus-like,  receive  new  vigor  in  his  frame.  But  he 
had  approached  too  near  the  confine  for  any  natural 
means  to  bring  him  back.  And  so,  his  mission  here 
ended,  he  has  gone  to  join  the  generations  on  the  other 
side  of  the  line;  where  our  friends,  in  large  majority, 
already  are;  the  ultimate  destination  and  home  of  all. 

ADDRESS    OF    EX-JUDGE    LUCIEN    BIRDSEYE. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen: — My  long  acquaint- 
ance with  Judge  Robinson,  the  kindness  with  which 
he  welcomed  me  to  the  ranks  of  the  profession,  and 
the  earnest  regard  which  was  the  fruit  of  my  long 
intercourse  with  him,  render  it  a  privilege  to  me,  pain- 
ful indeed  but  real,  to  join  in  these  tributes  to  his 
memory. 

When  I  commenced  practice  in  Albany,  Mr.  Robin- 
son had  been  some  years  at  the  bar.  Although,  while 
there,  he  had  been  but  the  junior  member  of  his  firm — 
that  of  MacKown,  Van  Buren  &  Robinson — ^he  had 
already  made  his  mark  as  a  lawyer.  Mr.  MacKown 
was  Recorder  of  Albany.  Presiding  as  he  did  at  the 
monthly  sessions  of  his  Court,  and  feeling  the  burdens 
of  his  great  age  and  increasing  infirmity,  he  had  sub- 
stantially withdrawn  from  active  participation  in  the 
business  of  the  firm.     The  tastes  and  aptitudes  of  Mr. 

145 


Van  Buren  led  him  to  engage  in  the  contests  of  the  bar 
and  of  the  political  arena,  rather  than  in  the  severe 
studies  and  what  to  so  many  seem  the  dry  labors  of 
the  law  office ;  while  these  were  precisely  adapted  to 
the  tastes,  and  called  forth  all  the  powers  of  Mr.  Rob- 
inson. Thus  the  business  of  the  firm  had  passed  at  an 
early  day  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Robinson. 

He,  however,  left  that  firm,  and  came  to  New  York 
to  engage  in  practice.  I  think  his  residence  here  at 
that  period  was  too  brief  to  do  much  more  than  prove 
his  sagacity  in  selecting  the  field  of  his  life's  labors^ 
and  the  real  strength  of  character  which  underlaid  all 
his  modesty  and  self -distrust.  For,  without  both  sagac- 
ity and  force  of  will,  he  would  not  have  ventured  into 
such  a  field. 

When  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  chosen  attorney -general 
he  induced  Mr.  Robinson  to  return  to  Albany  to  act  as 
his  chief  assistant  in  that  office,  while  he  himself  be- 
came still  more  completely  the  popular  advocate  and 
orator. 

Taking  up  also  the  business  of  his  former  firm,  the 
preparation  of  pleadings,  opinions  and  briefs  fully 
occupied  his  time,  and  led  him  far  and  wide  in  legal 
studies  and  examinations.  At  this  period  of  his  life^ 
and  indeed  for  many  years  afterwards,  he  was  but 
rarely  seen,  and  still  more  rarely  heard  in  the  Courts. 

The  bar  of  Albany  was  then  a  very  strong  one. 
Among  those  most  frequently  seen  and  heard  in  the 
Courts,  and  who  were  famous  throughout  the  State  and 
beyond  it,  were,  besides  Mr.  Van  Buren  himself,  such 
men  as  Samuel  Stevens,  Marcus  T.  Reynolds,  Daniel 
Cady,  Teunis  Van  Vechten,    Nicholas  Hill,   Rufus  W. 

146 


Peckham,  Azor  Taber,  Julius  Rhoades,  Deodatus. 
Wright,  Henry  C.  Wheaton,  Samuel  H.  Hammond 
and  others. 

But  besides  these  men,  famous  as  advocates  and 
orators,  there  was  then  in  Albany,  as  there  must  be  at 
every  bar,  a  class  of  men  marked  by  characteristics 
very  different. 

Of  retiring  dispositions,  distrusting  themselves  in 
the  active  contests  before  Courts  and  juries,  hardly 
becoming  accustomed  or  willing  to  hear  their  owrt 
voices,  but  yet  knowing  well  their  own  powers  of  study^ 
and  examination  and  logical  statement,  they  gave 
themselves  up  to  the  labors  of  the  office  and  library, 
rather  than  of  the  Court  room.  They  made  the  deep 
researches  into  legal  principles;  prepared  the  careful 
array  of  authorities,  and  made  the  thorough  prepara- 
tions for  trials  and  arguments,  which,  after  all,  are  the 
real  ground  of  professional  success. 

Among  the  men  of  this  class  were  Gideon  Hawley, 
Cyrus  Stevens,  George  W.  Peckham,  Peter  Cagger, 
Stephen  D.  Van  Schaick  our  late  lamented  Surro- 
gate in  this  city ;  Mr.  Robinson  and  others.  Some  of 
these  men,  either  by  the  native  force  of  their  character, 
or  under  the  pressure  of  circumstances,  as  when  the 
advocate  of  the  firm  had  fallen,  or  been  laid  aside, 
overcame  the  modesty  of  their  natures,  and  became 
useful  and  successful  in  the  more  active  and  public  uses 
of  the  Courts. 

Eminent  as  the  bar  of  Albany  then  was  for  the  ability 
and  eloquence  of  its  leading  advocates,  it  may  well  be 
doubted  whether  it  was  not  equally  strong  in  the  learn- 
ing, the  industry,  the  acuteness,  the  skill  and  the  vigi- 

147 


lance  of  those  who,  according  to  the  English  classifica- 
tion of  our  profession,  would  have  been  known  only  as 
attorneys  and  solicitors. 

Such  men  as  Mr.  Cagger,  Mr.  Van  Schaick  and  Mr. 
Robinson,  were  powers,  not  only  in  their  several  offices, 
but  in  the  Courts,  where  they  seldom  appeared,  and 
even  in  general  business  and  public  affairs.  Each 
performed  great  labors  and  discharged  with  success 
great  responsibilities.  If,  as  has  sometimes  been  the 
fact,  the  public,  not  knowing  whose  were  the  real 
labors  that  contributed  so  much  to  the  triumphs  of  the 
bar,  gave  the  fame  and  reputation  to  those  whose  voices 
had  been  heard  there,  rather  than  to  those  who  had, 
in  fact,  but  in  private,  done  so  much  both  to  deserve 
and  to  command  those  successes,  it  was  not  strange. 
I  am  sure  that  none  of  the  gentlemen  I  have  named 
ever  experienced  a  pang  of  disappointment,  or  felt 
anything  but  the  desire  to  accomplish,  in  their  several 
spheres,  all  that  was  possible  to  protect  and  promote  the 
rights  and  interests  of  their  clients. 

Soon  after  the  close  of  Mr.  Van  Buren's  term  of 
office  as  attorney-general,  he  and  Mr.  Robinson  removed 
to  this  city.  Here  Mr.  Robinson,  though  still  disin- 
clined to  appear  in  the  Court  room,  became  well,  if 
not  widely,  known  for  his  great  learning,  his  quick  per- 
ceptions, his  instant  grasp  of  the  points  of  a  case,  his 
logic,  his  power  of  legal  statement;  in  short,  for  all 
that  marks  the  lawyer  and  the  judge. 

As  a  consequence,  he  was  sought  as  a  referee.  It 
was  not  at  all  the  patronage  of  Judges,  but  the  free 
choice  of  attorneys  and  parties,  that  made  his  offices 
to  resemble  rather  a   crowded   Court   room   than   the 

£4^ 


chambers  of  a  very  modest,  quiet  and  retiring  member 
of  the  profession. 

Scarcely  had  Mr.  Van  Buren  retired  from  active 
practice  when  those  engaged  in  the  litigated  business 
of  this  city  seemed  to  discover,  as  by  common  consent, 
that  here  was  a  great  lawyer  and  a  great  Judge  ready 
at  their  hand.  The  labors  and  studies  of  his  early  life 
had  borne  their  fruit.  And  some  years  later,  when 
this  Court  was  reorganized,  this  verdict  of  the  profes- 
sion was  ratified  by  that  of  the  people,  and  he  was 
placed  on  the  bench  of  this  Court. 

In  what  manner  he  discharged  the  duties  of  his  high 
office  needs  not  be  told  in  this  place  or  this  presence. 
On  his  own  part,  with  what  assiduity  and  faithfulness; 
with  what  fulness  of  learning;  with  what  wide  re- 
search ;  with  what  quickness  of  perception ;  with  what 
patience;  with  what  gentleness  of  demeanor  and  kind- 
ness of  heart ;  with  what  singleness  of  mind  and  simple 
purpose  to  perform  every  day  the  duties  of  that  day; 
and  on  the  part  of  others,  with  what  genuine,  univers- 
al confidence  in  his  uprightness,  his  purity,  his  un- 
selfishness, his  supreme  love  of  right  and  truth  and 
justice,  I  do  not  attempt  to  speak.  For  are  not  all 
these  things  recorded  in  all  that  he  has  done  in  this 
Court,  and  engraven  on  the  memory  of  us  all? 

Let  me,  rather,  say  a  few  words  of  his  personal 
character,  as  it  impressed  itself  upon  me  during  a 
friendship  of  many  years. 

It  was  my  good  fortune  to  become  his  friend  at  the 
very  beginning  of  my  own  professional  life ;  to  have 
seen  much  of  him  while  we  dwelt  in  Albany ;  to  have 
followed  him  thence  to  New  York  at  an  early  day,  and 

149 


in  no  small  part  because  of  his  advice ;  to  have  had  my 
own  chambers,  for  some  years  thereafter,  almost  in 
<:ommon  with  his  own;  and  during  that  time,  and 
always  afterwards,  to  have  regarded  him  with  affection 
and  esteem. 

Few  men  were  better  adapted  to  inspire  esteem  or 
affection. 

The  same  qualities  of  the  mind  and  the  heart  which 
seemed  to  withhold  him  from  the  forum  made  him 
delightful  as  a  companion.  Genial,  quick,  ready, 
keenly  appreciating  wit  and  humor,  as  ready  and  as 
strong  in  conversation  as  in  the  use  of  the  pen,  sincere, 
simple  in  tastes  and  pleasures,  of  a  memory  quick, 
ready  and  correct,  how  could  he  be  other  than  he  was — 
the  charming  companion,  the  friend,  faithful,  trusting 
and  trusted,  loving  and  beloved  ? 

That  trait  which  has  to  me  seemed,  perhaps,  the 
most  noteworthy  in  the  character  of  our  departed 
brother,  was  the  quickness,  the  clearness,  the  direct- 
ness of  every  operation  of  his  mind  and  heart.  What 
with  others  was  a  process,  with  him  seemed  oftentimes 
to  be  a  result.  What  other  minds  sought  by  induc- 
tion, and  with  pains  and  labor,  he  appeared  often  to 
reach  as  if  at  a  glance.  And  this  quickness  and  purity 
of  his  mental  operations  was  joined  with,  if  not  in  large 
part  derived  from,  the  quickness  and  purity  of  all  the 
feelings  of  his  heart.  His  sympathies  were  ready.  He 
was  himself  last  in  his  own  thoughts.  And  so  he  was 
considerate  of  the  rights  and  interests,  the  enjoyments 
and  pleasures  of  all  around  him. 

In  reviewing  the  career  now  closed,  so  long,  so  full 
of  honor,  and  of  all  useful  service,  public  and  private, 

150 


one  is,  I  think,  reminded  of  a  somewhat  similar 
career,  long  since  passed  into  the  history  of  our  pro- 
fession. 

It  is  now  a  little  more  than  a  hundred  years  since  an 
English  lawyer  was  promoted  to  the  Court  of  the 
King's  Bench,  where  he  was  long  the  associate  and 
friend  of  Lord  Mansfield,  who  desire.d  him  to  be  his 
own  successor  as  Chief  Justice.  When  Francis  BuUer 
was  made  Judge  in  the  highest  common  law  Court  of 
England,  it  is  said  that  the  propriety  of  his  appointment 
was  questioned,  because  of  his  want  of  prominence  and 
success  as  an  advocate  at  the  bar.  But  he  adorned  the 
bench  of  that  Court  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century. 
He  proved  to  be,  almost,  as  it  were,  by  nature  and 
instinct,  a  great  jurist,  a  great  nisi  prius  lawyer,  a 
great  Judge.  His  book  upon  the  practice  at  nisi  prius 
was  the  first  effort  to  state  in  a  formal  or  scientific 
manner  the  principles  of  that  part  of  the  science  of  our 
profession.  It  has  done  much,  especially  in  the 
writers  whom  he  has  led  to  treat  of  the  same  subject, 
to  throw  light  upon  what  was  in  his  day  a  very  obscure, 
and  must  ever  be  a  very  important  and  difficult  branch 
of  practice. 

Certainly  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  elevation  of 
Judge  Robinson  to  the  bench  was  anything  like  the 
experiment  which  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Justice 
BuUer  was  at  first  thought  by  some  to  be,  but  which 
resulted  so  happily.  For,  at  the  time  of  his  nomina- 
tion and  election.  Judge  Robinson  (almost  unknown  as 
he  was  in  the  more  active  walks  of  his  profession)  had 
really  passed  through  a  more  careful  professional  and 
judicial  training  than  was  at  all  known  to  or  appre- 

151 


ciated  by  most  of  his  brothers  at  the  bar.  His  whole 
career  upon  the  bench  has  shown  how  his  great  natural 
powers  had  been  disciplined  and  supplemented,  by  long 
and  deep  study  and  large  experience,  to  fit  him  for  his 
eminence  as  a  lawyer  and  a  Judge. 

Still,  it  seems  to  me,  that  in  the  tone  and  character 
of  their  minds;  in  the  amplitude  and  readiness  of  their 
learning;  in  their  fitness  for  judicial  labors;  in  their 
fondness  for  and  faithfulness  in  those  duties;  and  in  the 
ease  and  clearness  of  their  legal  statements,  these  two 
great  Judges  were  very  much  alike. 

Indeed,  I  think  it  may  be  said,  that  in  respect  of  all 
those  qualities  which  render  a  lawyer  and  a  Judge 
really  useful  and  great,  Judge  Robinson  was  singularly 
well  endowed. 

Happy  was  he  that  in  his  life  he  secured  so  much  of 
the  respect  and  the  love  of  all  who  came  within  the 
sphere  of  his  influence ;  and  that,  at  his  death,  he  is 
found  to  deserve  so  well  the  admiration  of  those  who 
shall  come  after  him. 

ADDRESS    OF    JUDGE    HOOPER    C.    VAN    VORST. 

The  life  and  character  of  Hamilton  W.  Robinson,  in 
whose  memory  the  bar  of  New  York  is  this  day 
assembled,  are  interesting  to  contemplate  and  study. 

There  was  a  remarkable  unity  in  the  development  of 
his  life  from  its  beginning  to  its  close. 

In  college,  although  among  if  not  the  youngest  of 
his  class,  his  whole  course  was  marked  by  a  diligent 
and  thoughtful  attention  to  his  studies  and  duties. 

He  properly,  although  then  a  mere  youth,  regarded 
this  period  of  his  life  as  truly  formative,  and  as  likely 

15a 


to  give  direction  and  character  to  his  future  career. 
Evil  habits  were  avoided  and  good  ones  formed. 

I  have  heard  him  in  after  years  speak  with  much 
feeling  of  the  preparatory  training  and  discipline  which 
he  received  from  his  father,  whose  heart  seemed 
wrapped  up  in  the  life  and  future  of  his  son. 

He  gratefully  acknowledged  the  ever  present  and 
inspiring  influence  that  his  father  exercised  on  him. 

He  had  marked  out  for  himself  a  life  of  devotion  to 
the  profession  of  the  law,  in  the  principles  of  which  he 
was  always  deeply  interested.  He  always  loved  his 
profession,  and  in  his  life  honored  it. 

His  early  training  had  prepared  him  for  a  useful  and 
successful  career.  But  this  he  knew  could  only  be 
realized  by  constant  study  and  earnest  application. 

He  never  suffered  himself  to  be  drawn  aside  from  his 
duties,  or  to  miss  the  mark  upon  which  his  eyes  were 
always  fixed,  by  any  pursuits  or  interests  which  would 
hinder  his  onward  progress. 

As  his  tastes  would  have  preferred,  so  he  was  led  into 
a  plane  of  professional  business  important  in  its  char- 
acter, and  which  gave  full  play  to  the  excellent  quali- 
ties of  his  mind.  The  interests  of  his  litigations  were 
generally  large,  and  the  legal  questions  involved 
serious. 

While  a  junior  to  others,  much  of  the  effective  pre- 
paration of  cases  fell  upon  him.  He  seemed  to  antici- 
pate and  guard  himself  and  his  case  against  all  difficul- 
ties likely  to  arise,  and  was  prepared  to  meet  unusual 
exigencies.  He  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  his  clients 
to  a  large  degree.  This  confidence  was  always  merited 
and  respected,  and  to  the  end  of  his  life  he  held  the 

153 


esteem  of  all  with  whom  he  had  held  professional  rela- 
tions. 

He  was  fitted  by  education,  training,  and  mental 
constitution  to  be  a  Judge. 

And  in  the  course  of  3'ears,  he  was  called  to  a  place 
upon  the  bench  of  this  honorable  Court.  But  on  the 
day  he  took  his  seat  with  his  respected  associates,  he 
was  in  truth  already  an  experienced  and  useful  Judge. 

He  had  been  disciplined  into  habits  of  careful  thought 
and  sound  judgment. 

He  was  already  fitted  thoroughly  to  analyze  evidence, 
and  reach  the  truth  amid  conflicting  statements,  and  to 
apply  the  controlling  legal  principles.  He  had  an 
inborn  love  of  justice  and  equity.  He  was  always  con- 
siderate and  impartial.  He  was  not  hasty  in  his  con- 
clusions, but  accepted  results  only  when  his  judgment 
and  conscience  were  satisfied.  He  had  a  just  regard 
for  authority,  which  he  had  been  educated  to  respect, 
and  in  decisions  always  remembered  that  it  was  the 
province  of  the  Judge  to  interpret  and  not  to  make 
the  law. 

When  his  judgments  and  decisions  come  to  be  con- 
sidered, they  will  be  found  to  be  reasonable  and  just  in 
their  scope  and  substance,  and  clear  and  logical  in 
statement.  He  was  patient  in  the  hearing  of  causes, 
kind,  considerate  and  courteous  in  his  demeanor  to 
counsel  engaged.  The  cause  of  justice  and  the  rights 
of  parties  were  always  safe  in  his  hands.  And  although 
his  life,  measured  by  years,  was  not  long,  yet  through 
its  work  and  fruit  it  was  complete  and  beautifully 
rounded. 


154 


**  That  life  is  long  which  answers  life's  great  end," 
and  in  this  regard  his  work  was  thoroughly  well  done. 

We  may  well  deplore  the  loss  of  one  so  excellent  as  a 
man,  so  sincere  and  kind  as  a  friend,  and  so  upright 
and  just  as  a  judge. 

ADDRESS    OF    CHIEF    JUSTICE    CHARLES    P.     DALY. 

It  is  proper,  gentlemen,  that  some  expression  should 
be  given  by  this  Court,  of  which  Judge  Robinson  was 
a  member,  on  the  loss  it  has  sustained  in  his  decease. 
It  is  very  gratifying  to  us,  his  late  colleagues,  to  hear 
the  tribute  paid  to  his  memory  in  the  remarks  which 
have  just  been  made,  and  to  witness  the  even  much 
more  substantial  tribute  paid  by  this  large  assemblage 
of  the  profession.  It  was  at  my  particular  request  that 
Judge  Robinson  consented  to  become  a  candidate  for 
the  judgeship  of  this  Court.  We  had  reason  to  be  par- 
ticularly gratified,  as  he  had  previously  declined  a 
nomination  for  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  and  at 
a  period  when  his  election  to  that  position  was  deemed 
certain ;  an  assurance  which  was  confirmed  by  the  very 
large  majority  accorded  to  those  who  were  afterwards 
elected.  I  say  we  had  reason  to  be  particularly  grati- 
fied as  members  of  the  Court  that  he  consented  to 
become  a  candidate  for  election,  and  were  much  more 
so  with  the  association  that  followed  upon  his  election. 
I  have  had  some  experience  in  judicial  life;  I  have  had 
some  contact  with  Judges,  and  a  large  contact  with 
members  of  the  bar,  and  I  only  pay  a  just  tribute  to 
my  deceased  colleague  when  I  say  that  no  one  with 
whom  I  have  ever  come  in  contact  in  the  discharge  of 
intellectual   duties,    fulfiled,   in  my  judgment,  all  the 

155 


requirements  so  much  as  he  di(i.  Gentle  in  his  nature, 
painstaking,  accurate  and  conscientious,  there  was  no 
amount  of  labor  that  he  was  not  willing  to  bestow,  no 
attention  that  he  was  not  prepared  to  give.  Where 
industry  is  stimulated  by  exceeding  conscientiousness 
as  it  was  in  his  case,  it  naturally  followed  that  great 
confidence  was  felt  in  his  conclusions,  springing  as  they 
did  from  so  pure  a  motive,  and  after  so  diligent  and 
laborious  an  exercise  of  all  the  qualities  w^hich  are 
requisite  to  secure  a  sound  judgment  upon  anything. 
It  was  not  only  in  this  respect  that  he  was  most  valuable 
to  us,  but  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  say  what  is  not  com- 
mon upon  public  occasions,  he  was  very  dear  to  us  for 
other  qualities.  I  think  there  is  an  old  Russian  proverb 
that  says,  "  You  never  know  anything  of  a  man  until 
you  have  made  a  campaign  with  him;"  and  my  experi- 
ence is  that  you  know  comparatively  little  of  a  Judge 
unless  you  are  associated  with  him  in  the  discharge  of 
official  duties.  You  then  see  more  clearly  the  motives 
by  which  he  is  actuated.  You  see  a  great  deal  which 
the  world  can  never  see.  You  get  an  insight  into  his 
finer  and  better  qualities  which  is  not  perceptible  to 
those  outside;  and  it  is  this  knowledge  which  makes 
the  loss  of  Judge  Robinson  to  us  a  very  great  one.  We 
can  all  unite  in  the  statement  that  during  the  period 
he  was  in  the  Court  the  greatest  harmony  prevailed  in 
our  intercourse  with  him,  which  was  never  in  any  way 
affected.  When  there  was  difference  of  judgment  on 
his  part  there  was  always  that  kindly  bearing  which  it 
is  easy  to  remember,  but  difficult  to  express;  a  uni- 
formity and  gentleness  of  character  which  was  exceed- 
ingly attractive  in  official  intercourse.     He  always  met 

156 


us  with  a  pleasant  smile,  and  such  a  thing  as  an 
unkindly  word  never  passed  his  lips ;  nor  so  far  as  the 
human  countenance  is  an  index  did  he  ever  appear  to 
harbor  an  unkindly  thought.  We  are  especially  grate- 
ful to  the  gentlemen  who  have  taken  the  trouble  upon 
this  occasion  to  call  particular  attention  to  the  special 
merits  of  our  deceased  colleague — Mr.  Marsh,  Judge 
Birdseye  and  Judge  Van  Vorst.  They  have  dwelt  upon 
the  intellectual  and  moral  qualities  by  which  he  was  dis- 
tinguished so  fully  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  say 
anything  more.  I  can  only  say,  gentlemen,  in  con- 
clusion, that  we  feel  his  loss  much  more  deeply  than  it 
is  in  our  power  to  express,  for  those  things  are  felt  most 
which  are  beyond  expression.  We  are  exceedingly 
grateful  for  the  tribute  which  has  been  paid  to  his 
memory,  and  none  know  better  than  we  do  how  justly 
it  has  been  bestowed. 

The  question  was  then  put  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  that  had  been  offered  by  Mr.  Vanderpoel, 
and  the  resolutions  were  adopted. 

Upon  motion  of  Mr.  Charles  Tracy,  the  secretary 
of  the  meeting  was  directed  to  transmit  a  copy  of  the 
resolutions  to  the  family  of  Judge  Robinson,  and  also 
to  furnish  copies  to  the  public  press  for  publication. 

The  meeting  then  adjourned. 

After  the  death  of  Judge  Hamilton  W.  Robinson, 
who  was  succeeded  by  Judge  Miles  Beach,  Judge 
Charles  H.  Van  Brunt  was  elected  to  the  Supreme 
Court  in  1883,  his  successor  being  Judge  Henry 
Wilder  Allen.    Judges  Joseph  F.  Daly,  Richard  L.  Lar- 

157 


remore  and  Henry  Wilder  Allen  had  been  re-elected 
for  full  terms  in  1874.  Th^  next  meeting  of  the 
bar,  in  the  rooms  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas, 
was  convened  on  the  occasion  of  the  retirement  of 
Chief  Justice  Charles  P.  Daly,  whose  term  of  office 
expired  December  31,  1885,  and  who  was  ineligible  to 
re-election  by  reason  of  the  constitutional  limit  as  to 
age.  This  interesting  event  was  the  occasion  of  an 
immense  gathering  of  members  of  the  bar  in  the  Gen- 
eral Term  room.  The  proceedings  are  reported  in 
full  on  the  next  page  and  the  general  expression  of  pub- 
lic opinion  on  the  incident,  as  voiced  by  the  press,  will 
be  found  in  the  appendix. 


158 


PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE    BAR    OF    THE  CITY 

OF  NEW  YORK  ON  THE  RETIREMENT  OF 

CHIEF  JUSTICE  CHARLES.  P.  DALY. 

A  meeting  of  the  bar  was  held  December  30th,  1885, 
in  the  General  Term  room  of  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  at  3  P.M.,  for  the  purpose  of  uniting  in  an  expression 
of  respect  for  the  character  and  services  of  Chief  Justice 
Daly,  on  his  retirement  from  the  bench.  The  signers 
to  the  call  for  this  meeting  were:  David  Dudley  Field, 
Wm.  Allen  Butler,  Aaron  J.  Vanderpoel,  Charles  A. 
Peabody,  Clarence  A.  Seward,  F.  R.  Coudert,  John  M. 
Scribner,  Isaac  P.  Martin,  J.  E,  Burrill,  Aaron  P. 
Whitehead,  M.  W.  Divine,  James  C.  Carter,  Luther  R. 
Marsh,  John  L.  Cadwalader.  Wm.  D.  Shipman,  Wm. 
G.  Choate,  Edw'd  Patterson,  George  Zabriskie,  Osbom 
E.  Bright,  Grosvenor  Lowrey,  Chas.  M.  Da  Costa,  Ch. 
Francis  Stone,  C.  W.  Bangs,  Algernon  S.  Sullivan, 
Almon  Goodwin,  E.  R.  Robinson,  Theron  G.  Strong, 
Elihu  Root,  Fordham  Morris,  Joseph  H.  Choate, 
Charles  C.  Beaman,  George  C.  Holt,  Francis  Lynde 
Stetson,  John  W.  Sterling,  Duncan  Smith,  E.  B.  Hins- 
dale, Edward  E.  Sprague,  Austen  G.  Fox,  Cephas 
Brainerd,  Henry  H.  Anderson,  F.  F.  Marbury,  W.  M. 
Prichard. 

Ex-President  Chester  A.  Arthur  presided,  and  on 
either  side  of  him  were  the  vice-presidents,  ex-Judge 

159 


Henry  Hilton,  Justices  Van  Brunt,  Barrett,  Brady  and 
Van  Vorst  and  ex-Judge  Fi^derick  W.  Loew,  all  of 
whom  have  been  Judges  of  the  Court.  Among  those 
present,  in  addition  to  those  who  signed  the  call  for 
the  meeting  were  ex-Judge  Edwards  Pierrepont, 
ex-Governor  John  T.  Hoffman,  Henry  L.  Clinton, 
Abram  Wakeman,  Judge-elect  Henry  W.  Book- 
staver,  Amasa  A.  Redfield,  Frank  Loomis,  Rufus 
F.  Andrews,  Robert  Sewell,  ex- Judge  A.  J.  Ditten- 
hoefer,  John  O.  Mott,  Peter  B.  Olney,  Frederick  G. 
Gedney,  Douglas  Taylor,  Rastus  B.  Ransom,  John 
Sherwood,  ex-Judge  William  H.  Arnoux,  Anthony  M. 
Keiley  and  many  others.  Sitting  with  the  Judges 
within  the  rail  was  Chief  Justice  Daly,  the  observed  of 
all  observers.  He  listened  with  heightened  color  to 
the  warm  encomiums  passed  upon  him,  but  when  he 
rose  to  reply  he  was  as  calm  in  manner  and  self-pos- 
sessed as  if  dealing  with  an  ordinary  motion.  Ex-Presi- 
dent Arthur  took  the  chair  at  the  nomination  of 
Algernon  S.  Sullivan. 

ADDRESS    OF    EX-PRESIDENT    ARTHUR. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Bar: — It  is  with  no  slight  reluc- 
tance that  I  accept  the  office  to  which  your  generous 
preference  has  called  me,  for  I  cannot  forget  that  these 
many  years  I  have  been  a  ''truant  in  the  law,"  and 
that  at  no  time  have  I  been  worthy  to  be  classed  among 
its  conspicuous  practitioners.  We  have  gathered  here 
to  pay  our  glad  tribute  of  affection  and  respect  to  one 
who  more  than  two  score  years  ago, 

"  His  years  but  young,  but  his  experience  old, 
His  head  unmellowed,  but  his  judgment  ripe," 

i6o 


was  called  to  the  bench  of  our  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 
How  admirably  he  has  ever  since  discharged  the  duties 
upon  which  he  then  entered,  this  company  of  lawyers 
know,  and  some  among  you  will  to-day  bear  witness. 
Their  province  I  shall  not  usurp.  It  is  for  them,  and  not 
for  me,  to  dwell  upon  that  love  of  truth  and  justice,  that 
courtesy  and  candor,  that  wide  and  profound  learning, 
that  strict  impartiality  and  stainless  integrity  which 
have  ever  distinguished  Judge  Daly's  juridical  life,  and 
because  of  which  his  retirement  from  the  bench  cannot 
fail  to  be  attended  with  deep  and  general  regret.  To 
whom  else,  indeed,  could  be  more  fittingly  applied  the 
encomium  of  Richard  Baxter  upon  Sir  Matthew  Hale : 
"  That  pattern  of  Judges,  entering  upon,  using  and 
voluntarily  surrounding  his  place  of  judicature  with 
the  most  universal  love,  honor  and  praise  ?  "  Gentle- 
men, what  is  your  pleasure  ? 

ADDRESS    OF    MR.    DAVID    DUDLEY    FIELD. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen: — When  we  see  a 
man  of  three  score  years  and  ten  wearing  his  faculties 
unimpaired,  dwelling  with  satisfaction  upon  the  past, 
enjoying  the  present,  and  looking  cheerfully  into  the 
future,  we  congratulate  him  upon  his  serene  old  age. 
And  if  he  has  been  as  mindful  of  his  public  as  of  his 
private  duties,  helping  to  form  and  reform  parties,  to 
make  and  unmake  magistrates,  and  to  shape  the  policy 
and  the  fate  of  that  wondrous  organism,  the  body  poli- 
tic, we  call  him  a  deserving  citizen.  If  he  has  borne 
public  office  to  public  satisfaction,  we  commend  him  for 
the  honorable  performance  of  his  duty  to  the  common- 
wealth.    And  if  the  office  has  been  judicial,  and  he  has 

i6i 


borne  it  long,  and  borne  it  well,  so  well,  indeed,  that 
no  one  blames,  but  all  men  ;f)raise  him,  we  pronounce 
him  thrice  happy. 

These  conditions  are  fulfiled  in  the  friend  whom  we 
are  here  to  receive  and  greet  on  his  descent  from  the 
bench.  He  has  lived  a  manly  and  blameless  life;  he 
has  been  a  faithful  citizen  of  the  dual  republic  into 
which  he  was  bom,  that  lesser  republic  the  State,  and 
that  greater  the  Nation,  to  which  the  State  belongs,  and 
he  has  discharged  the  functions  of  high  judicial  magis- 
tracy for  nearly  half  a  century,  without  fear  and  with- 
out reproach. 

This  is  not  the  place  nor  the  occasion  for  eulogy, 
which  would  be  as  unpleasant  for  him  to  hear  as  it 
would  be  unbecoming  in  me  to  speak,  but  the  most 
fastidious  taste  would  not  refuse  me  the  privilege  of 
saying  that  there  must  be  something  remarkable  in  one 
who  has  had  the  rare  distinction  of  having  been  once 
appointed  by  the  Executive  and  five  times  chosen  by 
universal  suffrage  to  the  same  high  judicial  office,  who 
has  walked  unharmed  over  the  hot  plowshares  of 
popular  elections,  and  filled  his  station  for  nearly  two- 
and-forty  years,  twenty-seven  of  them  as  the  Chief 
Justice,  to  the  general  acceptance  of  all  our  citizens. 
Some  details  of  his  life  are  to  be  mentioned  by  the 
gentleman  who  will  follow  me.  I  will  say  no  more  than 
that  he  had  the  great  advantage  of  beginning  without 
patrimony,  actual  or  expectant.  He  started  in  the  race 
of  life,  free  of  the  impediment  which  hinders  so  many 
of  our  youth ;  but  he»  had  a  stout  heart  and  a  steady 
hand,  and  with  these  he  went  forth  into  the  world. 
His  first  venture  was  on  the  sea,  where  he  acquired 

162 


that  taste  for  travel  and  love  of  geography  which  have 
distinguished  him  since.  In  one  of  his  voyages  it  was 
his  good  fortune  to  see  the  capture  of  Algiers  by  the 
French.  Who  of  us  would  not  have  toiled  hard  to  see 
the  lifting  of  that  curtain  which  had  hung  so  long  over 
the  southern  shores  of  the  Mediten*anean,  and  the  open- 
ing of  a  new  drama  on  the  theatre  of  the  Dark  Conti- 
nent ?  Returning  from  the  sea  to  the  land,  he  threw 
in  his  lot  with  the  great  and  honorable  company  of 
mechanics,  until  the  advice  of  a  friend  led  him  away  to 
the  law,  where,  as  we  all  know,  he  has  been  an  apt 
scholar  and  a  great  teacher. 

Consider  for  a  moment  the  nature  of  the  judicial 
office.  The  judgment  seat  has  been  accorded  in  his- 
tory sacred  and  profane  the  chief  place  of  honor.  The 
praise  of  the  greatest  of  men  was  that  he  sat  in  the 
^*  seat  of  judgment."  If  this  was  so  in  former  days, 
how  much  higher  has  the  seat  been  raised  in  our  day 
and  country.  The  ever-enlarging  circle  of  civilization, 
the  development  of  industrial  arts,  the  strides  of  com- 
merce, the  accumulation  of  corporate  wealth;  and 
above  all  the  subordination  of  the  law-giver  to  a  written 
constitution,  as  the  supreme  will  of  the  sovereign 
people,  all  these  have  invested  the  office  of  Judge  with 
a  dignity  and  power  the  past  never  knew.  What  new 
responsibility  do  they  not  entail!  What  qualities  of 
intellect  and  will,  what  laborious  study,  what  patient 
forbearance,  what  self-control  do  they  not  require; 
and  I  will  add,  what  increase  of  danger  do  they  not 
bring ! 

I  appeal,  then,  to  all  who  hear  me,  whether  our 
friend  has  not  earned  that  good  name,  that  affluence  of 

163 


respect,  which  by  common  consent  he  bears.  He  has 
held  office  by  choice  of  the  executive  and  votes  of  the 
people.  He  has  lived  under  the  old  dispensation  and 
the  new.  His  half -century  of  service  is  a  long  link  in 
that  endless  chain  of  law,  which  began  with  society  and 
will  end  only  when  society  is  dissolved.  With  what 
unswerving  honesty,  what  quiet  dignity,  what  honor- 
able simplicity,  he  has  discharged  his  great  trust,  we, 
who  are  his  witnesses,  can  testify.  Who  has  seen  him 
indifferent  to  the  duties  of  his  place  ?  None.  Who  has 
seen  him  turn  to  the  right  hand  or  the  left  for  any 
man's  frown  or  any  man's  favor  ?  None.  Who  has 
heard  him  discuss  out  of  Court  what  was  to  be  decided 
in  Court  ?  Nobody.  Who  has  believed  him  to  be 
moved  in  his  judgments  by  any  consideration  but  the 
law  and  the  testimony  ?  Not  one.  Let  us  then  greet 
him  as  victor,  coming  to  us  from  the  arena;  one 
who  has  honored  himself  and  in  doing  that  has 
honored  us. 

Mr.  Field  concluded  by  offering  the  following  reso- 
lution for  the  consideration  of  the  meeting : 

RESOLUTION. 

The  retirement  of  Chief  Justice  Charles  P.  Daly  from 
the  bench  of  the  Common  Pleas,  where  he  has  served 
for  more  than  forty- one  years,  and  presided  for  twenty- 
seven,  appears  to  us,  members  of  the  bar  of  the  City 
and  County  of  New  York,  a  fitting  occasion  for  express- 
ing our  respect  for  his  private  character  and  our  com- 
mendation of  his  judicial  career.  To  have  passed 
safely  for  more  than  two  score  years  through  the  trials 
of  judicial  life,   encountering  meantime  the  ordeal  of 

164 


t/i^c^^^^  ^^tC^^^^f"^'^—^ 


JAMES    C.    CARTER. 


BENJAMIN  F.   TRACY. 


five  popular  elections,  and  leaving  in  the  minds  of  all 
citizens  the  conviction  that  he  has  always  administered 
justice  without  fear  or  favor,  caring  only  for  the  law 
and  the  testimony,  which  he  diligently  studied — these 
things,  combining  with  the  uniform  courtesy,  patience 
and  impartiality  which  have  characterized  his  entire 
course  with  the  bar,  have  given  him  a  place  pre- 
eminent in  our  regards,  and  lead  us  to  salute  him  with 
our  most  respectful  homage,  as  he  descends  from  the 
bench  of  this  tribunal.  And  while  we  give  him  this 
salutation  for  the  past,  we  wish  him  for  the  future  long 
life  and  that  happiness  in  rest  from  judicial  labor  which 
springs  from  one's  own  self-respect,  and  a  life  well 
spent  in  the  service  of  God  and  his  fellow- men. 

ADDRESS    OF    MR.     WILLIAM    ALLEN    BUTLER. 

Mr.  Chairman  :  The  privilege  is  accorded  to  me  of 
seconding  the  resolutions  just  ojffered,  which  I  am  sure 
express  the  unanimous  sentiments  of  the  bar  of  this 
city  on  this  occasion,  marked  by  so  much  of  peculiar 
interest  and  significance. 

However  we  may  differ  in  individual  opinion  as  to 
the  wisdom  of  that  provision  of  Section  1 3  of  the  Sixth 
Article  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  which  cuts  the 
thread  of  the  judicial  tenure  at  the  age  of  three  score 
years  and  ten,  we  are  grateful  for  the  opportunity  it 
gives  us  to-day  of  testifying  our  respect  and  regard  for 
the  retiring  Chief  Justice  of  this  honorable  Court,  who, 
having  helped,  as  a  member  of  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention, to  frame  this  very  section,  now  feels  its  force ; 
as  the  struck  eagle  of  the  poet's  fancy 


165 


'*  Viewed  his  own  feather  in  the  fatal  dart, 
And  winged  the  shaft  that  cfuivers  in  his  heart." 

We  are  all  reluctant  to  concede  the  facts  which 
require  the  application  of  the  constitutional  mandate  to 
Chief  Justice  Daly.  Could  our  suffrages  prevail,  we 
would  gladly  imitate  the  example  set,  day  before 
yesterday,  by  the  great  Republic  of  France  in  con- 
tinuing in  its  highest  office  one  whose  years  number 
seventy-three.*  But  we  have  no  alternative.  Against 
the  presumption  of  fitness  arising  from  our  observation 
of  his  unimpaired  mental  and  physical  vigor,  we  are 
met  by  his  candid  admission  and  by  the  conclusive  evi- 
dence on  the  files  of  this  Court,  and  so  by  force  of  a 
kind  of  inequitable  estoppel,  both  in  pais  and  by  the 
record,  the  organic  law,  not  of  nature,  but  of  the  State, 
adjudges  his  retirement. 

When  this  Court  was  organized  by  the  Act  of  1821, 
the  tenure  of  office  of  its  Judges  was  during  good 
behavior,  or  until  the  age  of  sixty  years  was  attained. 
This  provision  was  similar  to  that  of  the  Constitution 
of  182 1,  following  the  earlier  Constitution,  and  it 
applied  to  the  Chancellor  and  the  Justices  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  Our  present  Constitution  has  length- 
ened the  span  of  the  judicial  life  by  a  decade,  and  the 
judiciary  itself  has  improved  on  the  Constitution  by  the 
repeated  instances  it  has  afforded  of  unimpaired  facul- 
ties and  fitness  in  incumbents  of  the  bench  when  the 
limit  of  their  terms  had  been  reached.     As  it  was  with 


*  This  happy  reference  of  Mr.  Butler's  was  to  the  re-election  of  President 
Gr^vy,  whose  term  as  President  of  the  French  Republic  was  expiring,  and 
who  was  re-elected  to  his  hie:h  oflBce  at  the  age  of  seventy-three,  in  Decem- 
ber, 1885,  just  before  the  retirement  of  Chief  Justice  Daly. 

166 


them,  so  it  is  with  our  retiring  Chief  Justice;  the 
shadow  crosses  the  dial  and  marks  the  appointed  hour; 
the  object  on  which  it  falls  still  stands  erect  and  in  the 
sunlight. 

The  resolutions  fitly  emphasize  the  long  duration  of 
his  term  of  office  now  about  to  expire ;  a  term  longer  by  ten 
years  than  the  judicial  life  of  Lord  Mansfield,  and  by 
nearly  ten  years  that  of  Judge  Story.  The  illustrious 
career  of  Judge  Samuel  Nelson,  reaching  to  within  a 
few  months  of  a  full  half  century  of  judicial  service, 
embraced  his  term  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  as  well  as  that  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  this 
State.  The  peculiar  feature  of  the  judicial  life  of  Chief 
Justice  Daly  is  that  it  has  been  spent  in  this  single 
sphere  of  duty,  within  the  limits  of  this  city,  and  the 
precincts  of  this  Court.  To  have  served  as  Associate 
Judge,  First  Judge  and  Chief  Justice  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  for  the  City  and  County  of  New  York  is 
to  have  held  a  foremost  place  as  a  judicial  officer  in  the 
commercial  centre  of  the  nation,  during  the  most  event- 
ful period  in  the  history  of  our  jurisprudence ;  a  period 
marked  by  progress  and  reform ;  by  the  simplification 
of  the  methods  of  procedure ;  by  the  application  of  the 
principles  of  justice  to  all  the  new  and  unprecedented 
activities  of  the  age ;  by  the  enlargement  of  the  field  of 
judicial  cognizance  and  research  through  the  aid  of 
science  and  the  inexhaustible  energies  of  commerce; 
by  the  investiture  of  the  Courts  of  Common  Law  with 
the  benignant  powers  of  equitable  jurisdiction;  and 
by  the  unexampled  advance  of  freedom  and  the  rights 
of  man. 

This  growth  and  advance  are  well  illustrated  in  the 

167 


history  of  this  tribunal,  and  in  the  experience  of  its 
Chief  Justice.  At  first,  an  outgrowth  of  the  Mayor's 
Court — a  purely  municipal  organization — it  was  com- 
mitted in  182 1  to  the  care  of  a  single  Judge.  After- 
wards, as  the  city  grew  and  its  commerce  was  enlarged, 
the  number  of  its  Judges  was,  from  time  to  time, 
increased,  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  extended, 
until  now,  with  its  common  law  and  equity  jurisdiction 
it  is,  substantially,  coordinate  with  the  Supreme  Court. 
I  cannot  but  think  that  the  Chief  Justice  must  have 
exerted  some  occult  influence  over  the  Reformers  of 
1848,  when  the  whole  nomenclature  of  pleading  was 
swept  away,  and  pleas  in  abatement,  ■plea.s  ptiis  darrein, 
rejoinders,  rebutters,  and  surrebutters,  went  by  the 
board.  Nothing  was  saved  except  the  demurrer — 
which  no  honest  defendant  will  ever  part  with — and 
the  name  of  this  Court,  which  remains  unchanged.  It 
is  a  link  between  the  judicial  system  of  to-day  and  that 
which  was  administered  by  the  Court,  when,  in  1844, 
Chief  Justice  Daly  first  took  the  oath  of  office  and 
found  himself  encircled,  but  not  entangled,  by  the  net- 
work of  special  pleas  woven  by  such  veteran  experts  of 
the  common  law  as  John  Anthon,  James  W.  Gerard, 
Charles  O'Conor,  Daniel  Lord  and  their  many  com- 
peers, whom  time  fails  me  to  mention,  but  whose  names 
your  memories  will  supply. 

Very  near  to  the  people  in  its  original  and  its 
appellate  jurisdiction,  this  Court  has  commanded  the 
respect  of  the  bench  and  the  bar,  by  the  character  of  its 
Judges,  and  the  weight  of  their  decisions,  a  respect 
largely  due,  as  many  of  us  can  testify,  to  the  personal 
probity,    the  undeviating   courtesy,    the    ability,    the 

168 


m<Y. 


industry  and  painstaking  of  the  learned  and  accom- 
plished jurist  who  for  more  than  two  score  years  has 
aided  in  its  administration  of  justice,  and  for  more  than 
a  quarter  of  a  century  has  been  its  Presiding  Judge. 
Standing  thus  as  a  representative  of  the  past  as  well  as 
the  present  judicial  system,  we  may  well  point  to  the 
Chief  Justice  as  an  example  of  the  best  working  of 
both ;  and  as  illustrating,  in  his  person  and  career,  the 
excellence  of  the  Judges  we  had  when  Judges  were 
appointed,  and  the  excellence  of  the  Judges  we  have 
had  since  Judges  became  elective ;  while  his  protracted 
term  certainly  vindicates  the  wisdom  of  the  popular 
suffrage  by  which  his  long  continuance  in  office  has 
been  secured. 

I  can  only  advert,  in  passing,  to  special  instances  of 
decisions  and  opinions,  in  conspicuous  cases,  which  will 
remain  as  permanent  memorials  of  the  legal  ability  and 
skill  of  Chief  Justice  Daly,  and  to  his  varied  and  versa- 
tile labors  in  the  field  of  literature,  and  to  his  intelli- 
gent and  long-continued  work  in  the  department  of 
geographical  exploration  and  research.  The  admira- 
tion and  encomium  of  Baron  Von  Humboldt,  as 
expressed  in  his  published  letters,  in  regard  to  the  learn- 
ing and  accomplishments  of  the  Chief  Justice,  are  a 
just  tribute,  the  truthfulness  of  which  will  be  attested  by 
many  voices  at  home  and  in  Europe.  As  President  of 
the  Geographical  Society  we  congratulate  him  on 
retaining  a  jurisdiction  co-extensive  with  the  great 
globe  itself. 

I  cannot  close  without  adverting  to  another  charac- 
teristic of  the  Chief  Justice — his  sterling  integrity. 
This,   it  may  be  said,  is  superfluous.     Integrity  is  a 

169 


primal  and  necessary  element  of  the  judicial  character, 
without  whose  authenticating  ^tamp  it  would  be  a  base 
or  a  counterfeit  thing.  But,  as  in  the  solar  spectrum, 
while  the  prismatic  colors  are  always  the  same,  their 
brightness  is  enhanced  according  to  the  purity  of  the 
medium  through  which  they  pass,  so  when  the  honesty 
of  the  Judge  is  the  exhibition  of  the  purity  of  the  indi- 
vidual character,  we  may  well  accord  it  the  meed  of 
personal  praise. 

If  our  retrospect  of  the  period  covered  by  this  long 
term  of  judicial  service  took  in  nothing  at  variance  with 
the  absolute  integrity  of  the  judicial  character  we 
might  leave  to  silence  this  conspicuous  trait.  But  we 
are  only  dealing  truthfully  with  ourselves  and  with  the 
great  interests  which,  by  virtue  of  our  profession,  we 
hold  in  trust,  when  we  acknowledge  our  obligations  to 
men  who  adorn  and  elevate  the  judicial  function  by 
stern,  inflexible  uprightness.  It  is  because  we  have 
had,  during  that  period,  in  this  great  city,  in  the  midst 
of  its  greed,  its  temptations  and  its  selfish  competitions, 
on  the  bench  of  this  Court,  and  of  the  other  Courts 
within  these  walls,  men  of  the  stamp  of  Charles  P. 
Daly,  that  the  administration  of  justice  remains  to  us, 
to-day,  a  safe  and  sacred  thing;  men  of  whom,  as  indi- 
viduals, if  judicial  defection,  as  a  strange,  anomalous 
exception  to  the  rule  of  judicial  integrity,  is  ever 
abroad — worse  than  the  pestilence  that  walketh  in 
darkness,  or  the  destruction  that  wasteth  at  noonday — 
we  can  truly  say  ''  It  shall  not  come  nigh  thee."  And 
it  is  a  source  of  the  highest  satisfaction  to  us  to-day  to 
see  the  ideal  of  this  high,  unswerving  judicial  upright- 
ness exemplified  by  a  career  such  as  that  we  now  con- 

170 


template,  which  alike  at  its  setting  as  at  its  dawn  and 
its  meridian  has  satisfied  this  first  and  supreme  require- 
ment. 

Our  citizens  cannot  too  often  be  reminded  that  the 
main  source  of  security  and  strength  for  our  free  insti- 
tutions is  in  the  due  administration  of  justice,  and 
nowhere  is  there  greater  need  than  here  in  this  city 
that  we  properly  understand  and  appreciate  the  abso- 
lute necessity  of  placing  and  keeping  on  the  bench  hon- 
est, capable  and  courageous  men.  The  recent  election 
marked  the  ascendency  of  sound  views  in  this  direction 
in  the  expression  of  the  popular  will  in  the  reelection 
of  faithful  Judges  whose  terms  had  expired,  and  but 
for  the  constitutional  bar  there  would  have  been  a 
unanimous  reelection  of  the  Chief  Justice  whom,  with- 
out undue  adulation,  but  with  honest  praise,  we  honor 
to-day  in  this  city  of  his  birth  and  of  his  life-long  labors, 
in  the  Court  in  which  he  has  been  a  familiar  presence 
for  so  many  years,  beside  his  co-workers  of  the  bench 
with  whom  he  has  shared  his  responsibilities  of  faithful 
judicial  service,  and  among  his  brethren  of  the  bar  who 
pay  this  united  tribute,  not  only  to  the  learned  and 
upright  Judge,  but  also  to  the  true-hearted  and  large- 
hearted  man. 

Happy,  says  the  Roman  poet,  is  he  to  whom  it  is 
given  to  say,  at  each  day's  close:   *'  I  have  lived." 

"  Laetus  *  *  cui  licet  in  diem 
Dixisse  Vixi." 

Certainly  he  is  more  to  be  felicitated  who,  in  the 
evening  of  life,  can  look  back  over  a  career  of  public 
service  begun   in  early  manhood  and  pursued  to  the 

171 


final  limit  of  permitted  judicial  labor,  and  say  with 
truth  that  he  has  filled  up^  the  measure  of  usefulness 
and  duty.  Such  satisfaction  attends  our  venerated 
friend  and  brother,  Chief  Justice  Daly,  and  as  he  quits 
his  place  of  dignity  and  authority  on  this  bench  and  lays 
aside  the  ermine,  worn  so  worthily,  he  will  be  invested 
with  the  affection,  esteem  and  best  wishes  of  all  his 
professional  brethren  on  the  bench  and  at  the  bar,  and 
with  the  grateful  respect  of  the  community  he  has 
served  so  long  and  so  well. 

ADDRESS    OF    JUDGE    RICHARD    o'GORMAN. 

Judge  O'Gorman  said  that  no  word  of  his  could 
heighten  the  interest  of  this  occasion,  which  had  brought 
together  so  many  distinguished  members  of  the  bar. 
They  felt  the  joy  of  the  friend,  the  pride  of  the  fellow- 
lawyer  and  citizen  that  one  of  them  should  have  deserved 
so  great  praise  as  was  awarded  to  Chief  Justice  Daly. 
The  only  regret  was  that  the  public  was  to  lose  the  ser- 
vices of  an  officer  still  in  the  prime  of  intellectual  vigor. 
The  occasion  was  one  almost  unprecedented.  For  forty- 
one  years  Charles  P.  Daly  had  been  a  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas  and  for  twenty-seven  years  Chief  Jus- 
tice. The  office  was  full  of  care  and  responsibility  and 
he  had  filled  it  in  the  full  glare  of  publicity  for  all  these 
years.  He  had  played  his  great  judicial  part,  and,  like 
the  actor  turning  to  leave  the  stage,  awaited  the  ver- 
dict, which  was  unanimously  in  his  favor.  The  presid- 
ing officer  of  this  meeting  had  lately  laid  down  his 
office  as  the  head  of  the  Goverment  with  unostentatious 
dignity,  carrying  with  him  golden  opinions  from  all, 
and  this  vast  meeting  of  prominent  members  of  the 

172 


te^Hu^^^ 


^^X^Tla 


IXjCMAfi'^^    LiA'^c^^«--<y)--jD 


bar,  presided  over  by  him,  was  not  one  of  Tinmeaning 
flattery  of  the  retiring  jurist.  His  impartiality,  his 
suavity  and  fair  treatment  of  all  had  made  him  friends 
among  all  parties. 

Judge  O'Gorman's  speech  was  very  earnest  and  elo- 
quent. 

ADDRESS    OF    JUDGE    RICHARD    L.     LARREMORE. 

The  Court  of  which  Chief  Justice  Daly  is  the  retiring 
member  asks  the  privilege  of  adding  another  leaf  to 
the  closing  chapter  of  his  judicial  life.  His  associates 
wholly  appreciate  the  delicate  but  still  deserved  compli- 
ment which  the  occasion  commemorates.  We  feel  hon- 
ored and  encouraged  by  this  public  recognition  of  a 
long  and  useful  judicial  career.  Over  fifteen  years  of 
personal  and  professional  intercourse  have  taught  us 
the  value  of  Charles  P.  Daly  to  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas.  He  has  been  so  long  and  closely  identified  with 
it  that  it  may  be  said  without  affectation  or  extrava- 
gance he  represented  it.  Born  in  the  old  school  of  our 
profession,  he  has  never  forgotten  his  early  training  in 
exhaustive  and  elaborate  investigation;  yet  has  he 
always  been  keenly  alive  to  that  progressive  spirit 
which  would  simplify  the  practice  and  enlarge  the 
benefits  of  the  law  which  he  administered.  Of  his 
ability  and  success  as  a  jurist  it  is  unnecessary  to  speak. 
His  decisions  form  no  inconspicuous  part  of  the  juris- 
prudence of  the  State,  and  may  safely  be  left  to  stand 
upon  their  own  merits.  In  his  social  and  judicial  rela- 
tions he  has  always  been  the  dignified  gentleman  and 
jurist.  Kindness  and  courtesy  have  always  character- 
ized  his   action.     This   has  been  continuously   mani- 

173 


fested,  not  only  to  his  immediate  associates,  but  to  all 
who  came  within  the  contact  of  his  influence.  It  has 
so  happened  that  in  small  matters  our  honored  Chief 
Justice  has  won  our  admiration  and  respect.  Whether 
the  amount  in  litigation  was  $2  or  $200,000,  the  same 
patient  care  and  scrutiny  were  always  exercised.  Faith- 
ful in  the  least,  he  has  necessarily  been  faithful  in 
much ;  and  none  except  those  immediately  interested 
will  ever  know  how  firmly  he  has  always  withstood  the 
encroachments  of  the  powerful  upon  the  rights  of  the 
lowly.  Apart  from  his  judicial  life,  Charles  P.  Daly  is 
favorably  known  and  recognized  in  the  departments  of 
literature  and  science.  We  are  greatly  gratified  that 
from  the  onerous  requirements  of  his  strict  professional 
calling  he  has  found  time  and  opportunity  (without 
neglect  of  official  duties)  to  diverge  his  attention  and 
influence  in  other  channels  of  usefulness.  Our  most 
intimate  relations  with  him  have  been  as  colleagues  of 
an  upright,  capable,  conscientious  Judge,  whose  judi- 
cial career  for  over  forty-one  years  will  ever  inspire  our 
zeal  and  invest  his  memory  with  many  cherished  asso- 
ciations. Nothing  more  remains  to  be  said.  It  is  a 
comfort  to  feel  that  we  have  not  met  under  the  shadow 
of  a  death,  but  in  the  ripened  life  of  a  living  jurist  who 
is  permitted  to  know  and  realize  his  exact  place  in  pub- 
lic estimation.  The  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  Mr. 
President,  gratefully  acknowledges  this  expression  of 
the  interest  by  yourself  and  the  assembly  in  the  career 
of  Chief  Justice  Daly,  and  unites  in  the  anticipation 
that  his  future  life  will  find  repose  in  contemplation  of 

"  Duty  well  done  and  joy  well  earned." 


174 


RESPONSE    OF    CHIEF    JUSTICE    CHARLES    P.   DALY. 

It  is  a  very  inadequate  expression  of  my  feelings  to 
say  that  I  am  deeply  moved  by  this  demonstration,  not 
only  from  what  has  been  said,  but  by  this  large  assem- 
blage of  the  bar  and  by  the  honor  you  have  done  me, 
sir  [turning  to  the  ex-President],  by  presiding  on  this 
occasion.  It  is  embarrassing  under  any  circumstances 
to  listen  to  one's  own  commendation,  and  more 
embarrassing  still  to  reply  to  it.  When  I  went  upon 
the  bench  at  the  early  age  of  twenty-eight,  it  was  not 
without  a  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  judicial  office 
and  of  how  little  I  was  qualified  to  fill  it,  from  my 
youth,  my  limited  learning  and  want  of  experience ;  for 
which  I  had  at  least  this  excuse,  that  I  had  not  been  an 
applicant  for  the  office ;  that  I  declined  the  appoint- 
ment when  it  was  first  offered  to  me,  and  accepted  it 
finally  only  upon  the  advice  of  Governor  Marcy,  as  the 
consummation  of  an  arrangement  that  satisfied  others 
who  had  been  contestants  for  the  place.  Accepting  it 
under  such  circumstances,  I  resolved  earnestly  to 
endeavor  to  do  my  duty,  and  now  that  I  am  about  to 
withdraw  from  it  after  an  official  service  of  more  than 
ordinary  duration,  it  is  very  gratifying  to  receive  this 
public  acknowledgment  that  you  think  that  I  have  done 
so.  It  is  gratifying  for  several  reasons.  Erasmus  has 
prefigured  the  general  situation  of  a  Judge  in  the 
exclamation  of  ' '  Unhappy  is  the  man  who  sees  both 
sides, "  to  which  may  be  added,  and  still  more  unhappy 
is  he  who  hopes  to  satisfy  both  sides.  I  early  recog- 
nized this  truth,  and  when  I  had  applied  all  my  powers 
to  the  examination  of  a  case,  and  had  decided  it,  I  never 
thought  of  it  afterwards;  and  as   a   Judge's  duties  lie 

175 


chiefly  in  the  settlement  of  legal  controversies  in  which 
one  party  is  gratified  and  the^other  disappointed,  it  is 
very  satisfactory  for  me  to  feel  that,  as  far  as  I  know, 
the  discharge  of  this  duty  over  so  many  years  has  left 
behind  it  no  unpleasant  recollections. 

There  is  another  reason  why  this  demonstration  is 
gratifying.  I  made  it  a  rule  very  early  in  my  career, 
from  an  experience  which  I  had  had,  that  I  never  would 
reply  to  or  seek  to  correct  any  misrepresentation  or 
erroneous  statement  respecting  myself  in  public 
journals,  of  which,  during  my  long  career,  I  have  had 
my  share — that  I  would  leave  everything  of  this  kind 
to  time.  This  was  sometimes  hard  to  bear.  During 
the  rule  of  what  was  known  as  the  "Ring,"  in  this 
city,  my  name  was  made  use  of  and  appeared  in  the 
public  journals  without  my  knowledge,  authority  or  ap- 
proval as  one  of  a  board  of  trustees  for  the  receipt  of 
money  for  the  erection  of  a  statue  in  this  city  to  Will- 
iam M.  Tweed.  It  was  very  hard  in  this  case  to 
adhere  to  that  resolution ;  but  I  did,  and  this  meeting 
is,  at  least  to  me,  an  assurance  that  I  lost  nothing  by 
doing  so. 

In  receiving  this  acknowledgment  on  the  part  of  the 
members  of  the  bar,  I  have  also  to  make  my  acknowl- 
edgements to  them ;  for  I  can  say,  as  Lord  Mansfield 
said  upon  a  like  occasion,  if  I  have  given  satisfaction  it 
is  owing  to  the  learning  and  assistance  of  the  bar.  It 
is  due  to  them  also  to  say  that  I  have,  especially  in  my 
later  years,  been  the  recipient  of  great  courtesy  at  their 
hands;  that  the  instances,  if  any,  have  been  few  in 
which  I  have  experienced  any  rudeness  or  discourtesy 
from  any  member  of  the  profession.     I   feel  this  the 

176 


more  because  judges,  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties, 
cannot  always  be  as  affable  or  as  courteous  as  they 
would  be  under  other  circumstances.  Having  gener- 
ally to  give  the  closest  attention  to  the  matter  before 
them — to  concentrate  all  their  faculties  for  the  imme- 
diate decision  of  questions  that  may  be  new,  intricate 
or  difficult — the  earnest  discharge  of  such  duties  fre- 
quently brings  about  a  highly  nervous  condition  that 
shows  itself  in  a  brusqueness  of  manner  and  curtness 
of  speech  that  sometimes  gives  offense  when  none  was 
intended,  and  as  I  have,  with  my  judicial  brethren, 
shared  in  this  infirmity,  I  feel,  as  I  have  said,  more 
sensibly,  the  courtesy  always  shown  me  by  the  bar. 

As  I  look  around  among  the  faces  of  the  members  of 
it  present  I  see  from  the  appearance  of  some  of  them 
that  they  could  not  have  been  born  when  I  went  upon 
the  bench.  This  reminds  me  more  than  the  enumera- 
tion of  years,  of  the  length  of  time  I  have  passed  in  the 
discharge  of  judicial  duties,  and  recalls  also  how  many, 
during  that  time,  have  passed  away,  with  whose  faces 
and  whose  voices  I  was  so  long  familiar.  This  is  not 
the  occasion,  however,  to  indulge  in  a  retrospect  of  the 
past.  At  some  future  time  I  hope  to  call  attention  to 
many  of  my  distinguished  contemporaries  by  embody- 
ing in  some  permanent  shape,  as  I  have  frequently 
been  asked  to  do,  my  recollections  of  the  bench  and  the 
bar  of  this  city  during  the  past  fifty  years. 

In  conclusion,  allow  me  to  say,  gentlemen,  that 
though  leaving  the  bench,  I  do  not  intend  to  separate 
myself  entirely  from  the  profession.  Accustomed  as  I 
have  been  for  the  past  forty-one  years  to  go  down 
town  every  morning  to  business,  I  do  not  deem  it  wise 

177 


to  give  up  that  habit  as  long  as  my  mental  and  bodily- 
faculties  remain  unimpaired.  A  long  experience  has 
taught  me  that  the  happiest  life  is  a  life  of  labor  when 
it  is  properly  intermingled  with  rest,  recreation  and 
exercise,  and  as  I  propose  to  continue  it  in  the  pursuits 
of  the  profession  hereafter,  I  trust  that  my  relations 
with  my  legal  brethren  in  the  future  will  continue  to 
be  as  pleasant  as  they  have  been  in  the  past. 

PRESENTATION    OF    A    GAVEL    TO    CHIEF     JUSTICE     CHARLES 

P.   DALY. 

Nathaniel  Jarvis,  Jr. ,  Clerk  of  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  then  stepped  forward  and  placed  in  the  hands  of 
the  presiding  officer  the  gavel  wielded  by  Chief  Justice 
Daly  for  so  many  years,  and  requested  him  to  present 
it  to  the  retiring  jurist.  Ex- President  Arthur  placed 
it  in  the  hands  of  Justice  Daly  and  said : 

Chief  Justice,  it  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  present 
to  you,  on  behalf  of  the  Clerks  of  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas,  the  gavel  that  you  have  wielded  so  many 
years  with  so  much  honor  and  dignity. 

This  was  received  with  a  bow,  and  the  meeting  was 
adjourned. 

INSCRIPTION    UPON    THE    GAVEL. 

Both  heads  of  the  gavel  are  encased  in  gold.  On  one 
head  is  the  arms  of  the  City  combined  with  those  of  the 
State.  Above  the  arms  is  the  name  Charles  P.  Daly, 
and  below  the  motto  Suscipere  et  Finire  (to  undertake 
and  complete),  and  on  either  side  of  the  arms  are  the 
dates  1 844-1 885.  On  the  gold  plate  of  the  other  head 
is  this  inscription : 

178 


This  gavel  was  used  by 

Michael  Ulshoeffer,  First  Judge, 

From  1838  to  1850. 

Daniel  Ingraham,  First  Judge, 
From  1850  to  1857. 

Charles  P.  Daly,  First  Judge, 
From  1857  to  1871. 

Charles  P.  Daly,  Chief  Justice, 
From  1871  to  1885. 

Upon  the  shank  of  the  handle,  which  is  surrounded  by 
a  gold  plate,  is  the  passage  from  Shakespeare's  *'  Mer- 
chant of  Venice," 

" O  wise  and  upright  judge. 


How  much  more  elder  art  thou  than  thy  looks?  " 

The  gavel  was  contained  in  an  oaken  box,  highly 
polished,  having  a  gold  plate  on  the  lid  with  the  in- 
scription : 

Chas.  p.  Daly, 

Hjec  glim  meminisse  juvabit, 

1885. 

which  may  be  rendered,  **  Hereafter  it  may  be  pleasant 
to  recall  these  things." 


179 


PRESENTATION    OF   A   MEMORIAL    TABLET 

OF  JUDGE  HAMILTON  W.   ROBINSON, 

ON  DECEMBER  2,   1895. 

There  was  a  crowded  attendance  in  the  General 
Term  room  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  on  Monday, 
December  2d,  1895,  to  witness  the  presentation  to  the 
Court  by  the  bar  of  New  York,  of  the  bronze  memorial 
tablet  in  honor  of  Judge  Hamilton  W.  Robinson.  The 
tablet  occupies  a  position  immediately  under  the  oil 
painting  of  Judge  Robinson. 

The  tablet  was  presented  in  brief  addresses  by  former 
Chief  Justice  Charles  P.  Daly  and  John  E.  Parsons. 

ADDRESS    OF    EX-CHIEF    JUSTICE    CHARLES    P.    DALY. 

I  rise  to  offer  and  ask  the  acceptance  of  this  cenotaph 
or  tablet  as  a  memorial  of  Hamilton  W.  Robinson. 
This  Court,  after  an  existence  of  two  hundred  and  forty- 
two  years,  passes  away  at  the  end  of  this  month,  and  it  is 
our  wish  while  it  is  still  in  being  to  place  upon  the  wall  of 
the  chamber  where  it  is  now  sitting  this  cenotaph  in  mem- 
ory of  one  of  its  most  satisfactory  Judges.  I  say  satis- 
factory, for  we  do  not  claim  for  Judge  Robinson  the  dis- 
tinction expressed  by  the  words  '*a  great  judge."  Hor- 
ace Binney,  in  his  eulogy  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  said 
that  the  world  had  produced  fewer  great  Judges  than  it  has 
of  great  men  in  any  other  department  of  civil  life.      In 

180 


confirmation  of  this  I  may  add  that  when  a  few  months 
ago  I  visited  Westminster  Abbey,  the  mausoleum  of 
England's  distinguished  dead,  in  going  over  that  grand 
home  of  departed  statesmen,  commanders,  historians 
and  theologians,  I  found  but  four  memorials  to  Judges, 
and  only  one  of  them.  Lord  Mansfield,  could  be  called 
a  great  Judge.  Of  the  other  three,  only  Sir  Robert 
Atkyn,  Chief  Baron  of  the  Exchequer  in  the  time  of 
William  III.,  was  a  man  of  pre-eminent  attainments; 
and  of  the  others,  Sir  Thomas  Bramwell,  who  presided 
at  the  trial  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  and  Sir  Thomas 
Richardson,  once  Chief  Justice,  it  may  be  said  that 
they  received  the  distinction  of  a  memorial  in  West- 
minster Abbey  for  some  other  cause  than  their  learn- 
ing and  ability  as  Judges.  Burke  has  said  that  the 
intelligent  administration  of  law  is  the  cement  of  human 
society,  and  upon  it  we  depend  for  the  preservation  of 
life,  liberty  and  property.  For  this  we  rely  on  those 
who  fill  judicial  office.  To  fill  this  high  trust,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  he  who  fills  it  should  be  a  great  Judge. 
That  distinction  is  due  to  times  and  circumstances  as 
much  as  to  ability. 

All  who  knew  Judge  Robinson  judicially  knew  he 
was  a  model  Judge  in  the  important  qualities  of  indus- 
try in  acquiring  knowledge  of  the  law,  and  discrimination 
in  applying  it,  in  uprightness,  in  patience,  and  in  the 
thorough  investigation  of  cas-es  decided  by  him.  No 
Judge  of  the  Court  ever  followed  more  fully  the  spirit 
of  the  prayer  for  divine  guidance  used  at  the  first  ses- 
sion of  the  Court  on  February  2d,  1653.  It  is  a  benefit 
to  society  to  make  permanent  record  of  such  a  judicial 
example.     The  sentiment  that  prompts  it  is  an  old  one. 

181 


Archaeologists  dig  up  in  Egyp^t  and  on  the  banks  of  the 
Tigris  and  Euphrates  memorials  of  those  past  civic 
fraternities  that  indicate  how  deep  seated  is  the  disposi- 
tion to  honor  departed  worth. 

RESPONSE    OF    CHIEF    JUSTICE    JOSEPH    F.    DALY    IN  ACCEPT- 
ING   THE    TABLET, 

This  occasion  recalls  the  meeting  held  over  sixteen 
years  ago  in  this  room,  when  the  leaders  of  the  bar  and 
Judges  representing  all  the  Courts,  Federal  and  State, 
of  this  district  met  to  testify  their  sorrow  at  the  death 
of  Judge  Robinson,  their  esteem  and  affection  for  him 
as  a  man  and  their  respect  for  the  commanding  position 
in  the  judiciary  and  the  profession  which  his  ability  and 
industry  had  gained  for  him.  You,  Judge  Daly,  then 
the  Chief  Justice  of  this  Court,  of  which  Judge  Robin- 
son was  a  member,  were  unanimously  elected  to  preside 
over  the  meeting.  The  vice-presidents  included  the 
then  five  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  of  whom  only 
two  are  now  on  the  bench;  the  six  Justices  of  the 
Superior  Court,  of  whom  two  only  now  survive;  Judge 
Blatchford,  then  United  States  Circuit  Judge,  who  has 
followed  into  rest  so  many  of  his  judicial  contempora- 
ries; Judge  William  G.  Choate,  then  United  States 
District  Judge,  and  five  eminent  lawyers  now  no  more 
—Charles  O'Conor,  David  Dudley  Field,  John  K.  Por- 
ter, William  A.  Beach,  and  Stephen  D.  Law.  Among 
the  secretaries  was  John  M.  Scribner,  who  commenced 
his  professional  career  as  an  associate  of  Judge  Robin- 
son before  he  ascended  the  bench,  and  who  is  present 
with  us  to-day. 

On  that  day,  April  24th,  1879,  addresses  were  deliv- 

182 


ered  by  the  favorite  of  the  bar,  Aaron  J.  Vanderpoel, 
by  Judge  Lucien  Birdseye,  Mr.  Luther  R.  Marsh, 
Judge  Van  Vorst,  and  by  Chief  Justice  Charles  P. 
Daly. 

Never  was  there  a  meeting  of  the  bar  which  had  less 
of  mere  formality  and  more  of  genuine  personal  feel- 
ing. Judge  Robinson  had  been  taken  away  by  death 
in  the  fulness  of  his  powers,  in  the  prime  of  life,  in  the 
midst  of  his  active  judicial  labors,  while  the  witnesses 
of  his  early  efforts  still  survived,  and  there  was  not  an 
expression  of  regret  uttered  that  day  which  did  not 
come  from  a  full  heart  and  reach  a  responsive  listener. 

The  lapse  of  sixteen  years  finds  his  memory  still 
cherished  by  the  members  of  the  bar.  One  of  his  then 
associates  on  the  bench,  distinguished  for  the  sound- 
ness and  vigor  of  his  judicial  opinions,  has  taken  the 
leading  part  in  the  preparation  of  the  beautiful  and  fit- 
ting tablet  which  is  to-day  unveiled  in  its  place  in  these 
halls.  With  Judge  Van  Hoesen  comes  also  the  former 
Chief  Justice  of  the  Court,  who,  ten  years  after  laying 
down  the  cares  of  office,  in  obedience  to  the  constitu- 
tional mandate  which  fixes  the  limit  of  judicial  service, 
appears  full  of  strength  and  power,  which  we  all  hope 
and  trust  may  be  continued  him  for  many  years  to 
come. 

Judge  Robinson  deserves  these  tributes  as  a  man. 
The  years  which  I  spent  with  him  in  the  closest  friend- 
ship and  united  by  the  strongest  ties  showed  me  that 
he  possessed  a  heart  full  of  good  will,  generosity,  forbear- 
ance, patience  and  love.  His  disposition  was  transpar- 
ently candid  and  open;  no  corner  of  it  harbored  an 
inclination  to  injure  a  fellow-man  for  any  cause  or  upon 

183 


any  provocation.  He  was  possessed  of  the  tenderest 
feelings;  a  slight  to  one  of  his  friends  wounded  him 
more  deeply  and  lastingly  than  the  person  for  whom  it 
was  intended ;  an  affront  to  himself,  though  keenly  felt, 
was  pardoned  and  forgotten. 

A  great  lawyer  among  the  greatest  lawyers  of  his 
time,  a  loved  companion  of  the  brightest  wits  of  the 
bar,  the  kindest,  gentlest  and  most  considerate  of  asso- 
ciates, his  union  of  gifts  and  qualities  showed  a  fine 
blending  of  the  natural  and  spiritual  in  his  life.  I  will 
not  lift  the  curtain  from  the  sanctity  of  his  inner  life 
more  than  is  sufficient  to  disclose  to  the  generation  that 
succeeds  him  that  he  was  unaffectedly  and  sincerely 
reverent — a  quality  indispensable  to  true  greatness  of 
purpose  and  achievement.  In  one  sense  only  was  he  a 
public  man,  and  that  was  in  the  exercise  of  his  judicial 
functions.  In  politics  as  such  his  busy  professional 
career  left  him  no  time  to  mix ;  but  he  was  personally 
known  to  men  who  in  his  time  swayed  the  political  des- 
tiny of  the  State,  and  there  was  not  one  of  them  who 
did  not  love  and  respect  his  uprightness,  independence 
and  high  sense  of  duty.  As  we  see  to-day,  the  recol- 
lection of  these  qualities  time  has  not  been  able  to 
efface  nor  length  of  years  to  deaden. 

It  is  in  memory  then  of  one  of  our  most  eminent 
Judges,  one  of  our  dearest  associates,  one  of  our  most 
exemplary  citizens,  that  you  present  to  the  Court  which 
he  adorned  the  commemorative  tablet  now  unveiled ; 
and  we  accept  it  on  behalf  of  our  Court,  of  the  whole 
judicial  body  of  the  county  and  of  the  whole  community 
which  witnessed  and  profited  by  his  great  judicial  ser- 
vice. 

184 


WILLIAM  B.  HORNBLOWER. 


DAVID    MC  CLURi:. 


WILLIAM   ALLEN    BUTLER. 


JOHN  H     V.    ARNOLD. 


MEETING   OF    THE    BAR   AT    THE   CLOSING 

OF  THE  EXISTENCE   OF   THE  COURT  OF 

COMMON  PLEAS,  DECEMBER  30,  1895. 

Pursuant  to  the  invitation  of  a  Committee  of  Ar- 
rangements composed  of  Hon.  George  M.  Van  Hoesen, 
chairman;  Austen  G.  Fox,  James  R.  Cuming,  John  M. 
Scribner,  William  Hildreth  Field,  George  L.  Rives, 
Ferdinand  Kurzman,  David  McClure  and  James  P. 
Davenport,  who  were  appointed  at  a  preliminary  meet- 
ing ' '  to  make  arrangements  for  exercises  that  shall 
commemorate  the  respect  and  good  feeling  that  the 
bar  of  New  York  has  always  entertained  for  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,"  the  members  of  the  bar  assembled 
in  the  General  Term  room  of  the  Court  in  the  County 
Court  House,  at  2  o'clock  p.  m.  ,  on  Monday,  December 
30th,  1895,  the  day  before  the  date  fixed  for  the  disso- 
lution of  the  Court  under  the  new  Constitution  consoli- 
dating an  the  Superior  Courts  of  cities  with  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  State. 

There  were  present  besides  the  Judges  of  the  Court, 
Presiding  Justice  Van  Brunt  of  the  Supreme  Court ;  the 
Judges  of  the  Superior  Court  of  the  City  of  New  York ; 
the  vSurrogates;  the  Judges  of  the  General  Sessions;  the 
Justices  of  the  City  Court  of  New  York ;  the  Justices  of 
the  District  Courts;  the  former  Judges  of  the  Common 
Pleas,  Charles  P.  Daly,  Henry  Hilton,  and  George  M. 
Van  Hoesen,  the   members   of  the   committee,  and  a 

185 


vast  concourse  of  members  of  t^he  bar  which  filled  the 
room  so  completely  that  many  were  unable  to  gain  ad- 
mittance. Upon  the  entrance  of  the  Judges  from  the 
private  chambers  they  were  received  with  great  ap- 
plause. 

The  meeting  was  called  to  order  by  ex-Judge  Van 
Hoesen,  who  nominated  for  chairman  Chief  Justice 
Joseph  F.  Daly.  The  motion  was  seconded  and  carried 
unanimously  and  Charles  A.  Runk  and  John  Proctor 
Clarke  were  named  a  committee  to  inform  the  Chief 
Justice  that  he  had  been  selected  to  preside.  As  the 
Chief  Justice  entered  and  assumed  his  place  he  was  re- 
ceived with  prolonged  applause.  On  nomination  of  ex- 
Judge  Van  Hoesen,  Mr.  Wilbur  Larremore,  son  of 
former  Chief  Justice  Richard  L.  Larremore ;  Mr.  Henry 
A.  Robinson,  son  of  former  Judge  Hamilton  W.  Robin- 
son, and  Mr.  George  Irving,  son  of  the  First  Judge 
John  T.  Irvdng,  were  requested  to  act  as  secretaries. 
The  secretaries  took  positions  on  the  bench  with  the 
Chief  Justice  and  the  other  Judges  present. 

The  Chairman  desired  to  know  the  pleasure  of  the 
meeting,  upon  which  Mr.  David  McClure  rose  and  said : 

address  of  mr.  david  mc  clure. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  : 

This  occasion  impresses  me  as  of  more  than  passing 
interest,  meriting  all  of  the  attention  it  has  attracted. 

When,  in  1882,  in  London,  the  Courts  of  Law  located 
in  Westminister  Hall,  and  the  Courts  of  Chancery  in 
Chancery  Lane,  were  transferred  to  the  new  Royal 
Courts  of  Law,  the  occasion  was  deemed  of  sufficient 
importance  to  warrant  ceremonies  participated  in  by 

186 


England's  Queen,  Lord  Chancellor  and  Lord  Chief 
Justice  before  a  gathering  including  that  country's  most 
distinguished  citizens:  this,  although  the  occasion 
was  simply  the  change  of  abode  of  the  Courts  in  ques- 
tion. And  those  Courts  were  by  those  ceremonies 
dignified  before  the  people  of  England,  and  that  peo- 
ple's respect  and  reverence  for  them  increased. 

To  us,  this  occasion  is  vastly  more  momentous.  A 
Court  with  a  past  reaching  back  to  the  earliest  days  of 
our  municipal,  and  far  beyond  our  national,  life,  whose 
record  is  honorable  and  meritorious,  is  about,  if  not  to 
die,  to  at  least  in  the  marriage  of  the  Courts  about  to 
take  place,  lose  that  identity  and  name  which  it  has 
held  for  more  than  two  centuries. 

It  is  therefore  ''good  for  us  to  be  here?"  It  is 
proper  that  we  should  pause  for  a  moment  in  these 
fleeting  hours  of  a  year  fast  passing  away,  a  season 
significant  of  death  and  life,  the  old  and  the  new,  and 
while  giving  voice  to  the  confident  expectation  that  the 
consolidated  Court  of  which  the  Judges  of  this  Court 
are  to  form  part  will  exist  and  labor  for  the  benefit  and 
to  the  pride  of  the  people,  mark  the  death  of  this  old, 
time-honored  tribunal,  and  in  the  spirit  of  justice  and 
kindness  note  its  work  and  merits. 

It  is  told  that  in  some  of  the  rural  districts  of  Ireland 
a  beautiful  custom  prevails  which  influences  a  traveler 
meeting  a  funeral  procession,  standing  by  the  roadside, 
with  head  reverently  uncovered,  to  lay  upon  the  bier  a 
wildflower  or  a  few  blades  of  grass,  and  so  I,  as  this  old 
Court  is  passing  away,  although  regretting  that  I  have 
no  flowers  of  rhetoric  with  which  to  brighten  and  per- 
fume, yet  reverently  pay  my  humble  tribute  of  respect. 

187 


Our  people  are  too  much  disposed  in  these  days,  to 
slight  the  work  and  sacrifices  of  holders  of  judicial  and 
other  offices,  and  too  slow  to  accredit  to  those  who 
serve  the  public  in  official  stations,  dispositions  unself- 
ish and  for  the  public  good. 

Our  Judges  cannot  be  held  in  too  high  respect,  our 
Courts  in  too  high  reverence,  and  we  lawyers  should 
be  prompt  in  fostering  such  respect  and  reverence  as 
well  by  our  united  expressions  as  by  our  individual  pro- 
fessional action. 

This  occasion  is  full  of  interest  to  all  of  the  citizens 
of  this  great  metropolis,  for  in  the  march  of  progress 
which  it  has  grandly  made,  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
has  held  an  honorable  place.  You  cannot  take  from  the 
Court  its  past  as  a  part  of  our  municipal  life  and  history. 
That  **at  least,  is  secure."  Surviving  until  now,  the 
changes  of  government,  the  vicissitudes  of  politics,  and 
the  dangers  of  constitutional  conventions  and  judicial 
commissions,  it  has  come  down  to  us  in  this  day  with 
a  record  of  usefulness  and  dignity  which  compels  our 
admiration.  There  must  have  been  in  it  much  of  merit 
to  endear  to  the  people  this  Court  of  Pleas,  as  it  was 
designated  in  one  of  the  old  charters  of  the  city,  and  of 
Common  Pleas,  as  it  afterwards  became,  calculated  by 
its  title  alone  to  keep  it  in  touch  with  the  people,  to 
warrant  its  long  life.  Its  age  and  place  alone  entitle  it 
to  our  respect. 

But  to  us  as  lawyers  there  is  additional  and  higher 
reason  why  we  should  be  impressed  with  the  impor- 
tance and  solemnity  of  this  occasion.  This  is  not  only 
an  old  Court,  but  it  is  a  Court  of  superior  jurisdiction, 
upon  the  bench  of  which  have  sat  distinguished  Judges 

i88 


who  have  labored  in  the  public  interest,  and  made 
records  spotless  as  to  integrity  and  bright  as  to  genius 
and  industry.  I  may  be  pardoned  reference  to  one  who 
to  our  delight  still  passes  among  us,  not  at  all  as  linger- 
ing on  the  stage  of  life,  but  with  full  strength,  keen 
intellect  and  wit,  full  of  charming  reminiscence,  entitled 
because  of  age,  character,  intellectuality  and  duty  well 
performed,  to  the  title  of  New  York's  first  citizen, 
whose  incumbency  began  before  many  of  us  were  bom. 
It  were  reason  enough  for  these  exercises  that  ex-Chief 
Justice  Charles  P.  Daly,  whose  name  and  that  of  the 
Court  will  always  be  inseparably  connected,  is  able  to 
make  us  happy,  as  he  has  done  by  his  presence  among 
us. 

And  then,  how  the  walls  of  these  rooms  and  of  the 
older  Court  rooms  in  the  City  Hall,  have  rung  with  the 
eloquent  tones  of  the  lawyers  who  in  their  day  were 
the  giants  of  the  bar.  Occasions  like  this  are  stopping 
places  on  the  highway  of  professional  life,  and  here 
pausing  we  look  back  over  the  road  we  have  traveled. 
During  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  active  work  in 
the  Courts  I  have  seen  in  those  old  rooms  great  lawyers 
who  have  passed  away,  whose  learning  and  eloquence 
charmed  both  bench  and  bar. 

Fame  is  at  the  best,  transient  and  fleeting,  human 
endeavor  is  often  unappreciated,  the  good  that  men  do 
often  dies  with  them.  Our  words  of  to-day  will  soon 
be  forgotten,  and  yet  as  in  this  ceremony  we  shall  have 
performed  in  part  our  duty  to  this  ancient  and  honora- 
ble Court,  all  who  have  taken  part  will  feel  that  the  day 
has  been  well  spent. 

The  committee  charged  at  the  preliminary  meeting 

189 


of  members  of  the  bar  with  the  management  of  the 
exercises  for  this  day,  was  directed  to  prepare  a  resolu- 
tion appropriate  to  the  occasion,  to  be,  if  adopted,  here 
with  your  permission,  placed  upon  the  record  of  this 
Court.  I  am  favored  in  being  selected  to  present  for 
your  consideration  this  resolution : 

As  under  the  amended  Constitution  the  Superior 
Courts  of  cities  are  to  be  consolidated  with  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State,  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  for  the 
City  and  County  of  New  York  will  soon  cease  to  exist 
as  a  separate  branch  of  our  judicial  system. 

Therefore  we,  members  of  the  bar  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  place  upon  record  this  public  expression  of  our 
respect  for  the  Court,  of  our  regard  for  its  Judges,  and 
for  the  value  of  their  labors;  of  our  good  wishes  for 
them  in  the  new  field  of  duty  to  which  the  Constitution 
calls  them ;  and  of  our  gratification  that  in  the  entire 
history  of  the  Court,  which  began  with  the  dawn  of 
this  city's  existence,  there  is  no  page  that  would  be 
bettered  by  excision  and  erasure.  The  names  of  the 
Judges  who  have  in  the  past  sat  upon  its  bench  are 
inseparably  connected  with  the  development  of  the 
system  of  jurisprudence  of  this  State  which  has  been  a 
guide  to  the  Courts  of  the  other  States  of  the  Union ; 
and  the  steady  increase  of  its  business  in  the  last  few 
years  is  a  convincing  witness  that  to  the  very  end  the 
Court  has  grown  in  the  confidence  of  the  bar  and  the 
people  of  New  York.  The  Court  of  Common  Pleas  for 
the  City  and  County  of  New  York  will  live  in  the  good 
work  that  it  has  finished,  and  in  pleasant  recollections 
of  its  courtesy,  its  dignity,  its  usefulness  and  its 
uprightness. 

ADDRESS    OF    EX-CHIEF    JUSTICE    CHARLES    P.    DALY. 

Mr.  Chairman:  As  this  Court  will  go  out  of  exist- 
ence  to-morrow,  I  have  been  asked  by  the  chairman 

190 


of  the  committee  who  has  had  the  arrangements  for 
this  meeting  in  charge  to  give  an  account  of  how  it 
came  into  existence,  with  such  other  historical  matter 
respecting  it  as  might  be  interesting  and  appropriate. 
I  have  agreed  to  do  it,  but  shall  do  so  very  briefly,  as 
there  are  several  other  gentlemen  present  who  are  to 
address  the  meeting. 

Lawyers  who  have  given  any  attention  to  the 
system  of  jurisprudence  we  inherited  from  England 
know  that  after  the  Norman  conquest  there  was  in 
England  a  great  Court  called  the  Aula  Regis.  It  was  a 
Court  held  by  the  king,  or,  in  his  absence,  by  an  officer 
called  the  Chief  Justiciary,  assisted  by  the  principal 
officers  of  State  and  such  barons  as  were  summoned  to 
attend  it,  in  the  hall  of  the  king's  palace,  for  a  certain 
number  of  days  called  a  term,  in  the  periods  of  Christ- 
mas, Easter  and  Whitsuntide  in  whatever  part  of 
England  the  king  at  that  time  might  be;  in  other 
words,  it  was  a  part  of  the  king's  household.  It  was 
held  with  great  pomp  and  ceremony,  especially  when 
the  king  presided  in  person,  which  William  the  Con- 
queror frequently  did,  sitting  with  his  crown  upon  his 
head  and  upon  a  high  bench,  more  elevated  than  the 
seats  around  him,  from  which  we  get  the  term  in  use 
to  the  present  day  of  the  "bench." 

The  chief  business  of  this  great  Court,  the  highest  in 
the  realm,  was  of  two  kinds  that  were  distinguished 
from  each  other  by  the  terms  "  Pleas  of  the  Crown" 
and  "  Common  Pleas:"  the  Pleas  of  the  Crown  embrac- 
ing crimes  and  misdemeanors,  all  matters  relating  to 
the  revenue,  and  all  other  matters  in  which  the  govern- 
ment was  interested,  while  Common  Pleas  were  dis- 

191 


putes  or  complaints  between  individuals  in  which  was 
included  all  questions  relating  to  land  or  what  was 
called  real  actions,  which  was  at  that  time  the  chief 
subject  of  litigation.  Now  the  largest  part  of  the  busi- 
ness that  came  before  the  Aula  Regis  was  that  coming 
under  the  head  of  common  pleas,  or  what  we  now  call 
**  civil  actions,"  and  it  was  felt  to  be  a  great  hardship 
that  the  suitors  in  such  actions  had,  for  the  determina- 
tion of  them,  to  go  before  the  King's  Court,  in  whatever 
part  of  England  that  Court  might  be.  It  was  one  of 
the  grievances  presented  on  behalf  of  the  people  when 
Magna  Charta  was  wrung  by  the  barons  from  King 
John  and  which  was  removed  by  a  clause  in  that  great 
charter  declaring  "that  Common  Pleas  are  not  to 
follow  the  king,  but  are  to  be  heard  in  some  certain 
place."  This  provision  led  in  the  reign  of  Henry  III., 
about  or  very  near  the  year  1234,  to  the  breaking  up  of 
the  Aula  Regis  into  two  Courts,  creating  a  separate 
Court  which  was  permanently  fixed  in  London  for  the 
trial  of  common  pleas,  and  to  which  the  name  was 
given  of  the  "  Court  of  Common  Pleas." 

In  the  reign  of  Henry's  successor,  Edward  I.,  justly 
called  by  Coke,  the  English  Justinian,  the  Aula  Regis, 
as  such,  was  abolished  and  a  new  Court  formed  in  its 
place  with  nearly  the  same  jurisdiction  as  a  legal  tribunal, 
to  which  the  name  was  given  of  the  King's  Bench ;  and, 
to  distinguish  the  King's  Bench  from  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas,  the  latter  for  some  time,  or  occa- 
sionally, thereafter  was  called  the  Common  Bench,  but 
its  original  name  remained  of  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  and  it  continued  to  be  called  by  that  name  until 
it  ceased  to  be  a  separate  tribunal. 

192 


The  establishment  of  this  tribunal  which  was  fixed 
permanently  in  London  led  to  very  important  results. 
It  has  been  said  that  we  owe  to  it  the  preservation  of 
the  common  law.  The  administration  of  the  law 
before  that  time  was  chiefly  in  the  hands  of  the 
ecclesiastics,  who  were  trained  in  the  civil  and  canon 
law,  and  they  were  gradually  substituting  that  foreign 
system  for  the  common  law  to  which  the  people  were 
deeply  attached.  The  establishment,  therefore,  in  the 
language  of  Stephens  the  commentator,  "of  this  princi- 
pal Court  of  Common  Law  at  that  particular  period  and 
at  that  particular  place,  gave  rise  to  the  Inns  of  Court 
which  collected  together  in  London  all  the  common  law 
lawyers  of  England,  and  by  which  the  common  law 
was  enabled  through  their  influence  and  firmness  to 
stand  all  the  attacks  made  by  the  canonists  and 
civilians  who  sought  to  destroy  it;"  and  all  those  who 
value  the  liberty  enjoyed  in  this  country  and  in 
England  and  which  has  been  secured  by  the  common 
law,  will  feel  how  great  that  service  at  that  particular 
period  was.  Of  all  the  higher  Courts,  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  was  for  centuries  the  popular  Court  and 
had  among  its  Judges  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
names  in  the  history  of  English  jurisprudence.  I  will 
not  now  stop  to  repeat  those  names.  It  is  sufficient  to 
mention  two  of  them.  Coke  and  Eldon. 

The  Court  existed  for  641  years  when  it  was  amalga- 
mated with  the  other  higher  Courts  in  1875,  retaining 
however  its  historical  name  as  the  Common  Pleas 
Division. 

When  this  city,  in  1664,  was  taken  from  the  Dutch 
by  the  English,  the  commander  of  the  English  expedi- 

193 


tion  and  the  first  governor  of  the  province  thereafter 
known  as  New  York,  found  a  court  established  here 
called  the  "Worshipfull  Court  of  the  Schout,  Burgo- 
master and  Schepens"  which  had  been  in  existence 
from  1653 — 242  years  ago:  the  Schout  being  equivalent 
to  our  Sheriff,  Burgomaster  to  our  Mayor,  and  Schepen 
to  that  of  Aldermen,  which  Court  combined  the  two- 
fold qualities  of  a  municipal  body  for  the  local  govern- 
ment of  the  city  and  of  a  Court  of  Justice  having  both 
civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction.  Governor  Nicolls 
altered  the  name  of  the  city  from  New  Amsterdam  to 
New  York,  and  gave  the  same  name  to  the  province, 
which,  before  that,  had  been  known  as  New  Nether- 
lands. He  desired  also  to  convert  this  important  Dutch 
Court  as  far  as  he  could  into  an  English  tribunal.  The 
task  was  not  an  easy  one.  All  the  proceedings  were 
conducted  in  the  Dutch  language.  The  Court,  there- 
fore, had  to  be  conducted  as  before  under  the  Dutch 
law  and  in  the  Dutch  language  which  it  was  for  many 
years  thereafter  under  the  governorship  of  Colonel 
Nicolls  and  of  his  successor  Lord  Lovelace.  But 
Nicolls  determined  to  do  something,  at  least,  to  give  it 
as  far  as  possible  an  English  character,  and  as  he  was  a 
soldier,  and  not  a  lawyer,  he  no  doubt  availed  himself 
of  the  assistance  of  Matthias  Nicolls  an  English  lawyer, 
who  had  settled  in  New  Amsterdam  before  it  was  cap- 
tured by  the  English.  One  might  naturally  ask  what 
an  English  lawyer  could  find  to  do  professionally  in  this 
little  Dutch  town,  as  New  Amsterdam  then  was ;  but 
he  had  been  employed  by  the  Dutch  governor,  Stuy- 
vesant,  in  his  controversies  with  the  New  England 
colonies,  and  as  there  was  considerable  trading  between 

194 


the  inhabitants  of  these  eastern  colonies  and  the  Dutch 
capital,  there  may  have  been  professional  business  for 
an  English  lawyer.  He  was  in  fact  such  a  useful  and 
capable  man  that  Governor  Nicolls  shortly  after  he 
took  possession  of  the  city,  made  him  Secretary  of  the 
Provinces,  which  he  continued  to  be  until  the  city  was 
retaken  by  the  Dutch  in  1673.  He  was  a  well  informed 
lawyer,  and  he  no  doubt  suggested  to  the  Governor 
that  all  he  could  do  was  to  give  English  names  alike  to 
the  Court  and  its  officers,  and  also  what  those  names 
should  be.  As  the  Court  was  permanently  fixed  in  the 
City  of  New  York  it  would  naturally  occur  that,  as  in 
this  respect  it  was  more  like  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  which  was  permanently  fixed  in  London,  than 
any  other  English  Court,  and  as  a  large  part  of  the 
business  it  transacted  was  of  the  same  kind,  questions 
or  controversies  between  individuals,  an  appropriate 
name  for  it  would  be  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  But 
it  had  also  what  the  English  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
had  not,  a  criminal  jurisdiction  in  respect  to  offences 
occurring  in  the  city ;  and  as  in  this  respect  it  was  like 
the  Mayor's  Court  of  London,  a  proper  English  name 
for  it  also  would  be  the  Mayor's  Court,  and  that  this 
could  be  further  carried  out  by  changing  the  name  of 
Burgomaster  to  that  of  Mayor,  Schepen  to  that  of 
Alderman,  and  of  Schout  to  Sheriff,  making  the  Mayor, 
and  not  the  Sheriff,  as  the  Schout  had  been  in  the 
Dutch  Court,  the  chief  presiding  officer,  all  of  which 
was  done ;  and  for  many  years  thereafter  it  was  known 
by  either  name  as  combining  the  function  of  both  of 
the  two  London  Courts,  the  Mayor's  Court  and  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas. 


195 


After  this  change  was  mad^,  Gov.  Nicolls  appointed 
as  the  first  Mayor  of  New  York,  Thomas  Willet,  an 
Englishman,  who  was  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the 
Dutch  language,  having  been  employed  previously  by 
Stuyvesant  in  important  negotiations.  He  was  a  man 
of  ability,  firmness  and  integrity,  whose  direct  descend- 
ant, as  I  saw  by  the  newspapers  a  month  or  two  ago, 
died  in  Jersey  City  at  the  advanced  age  of  90;  and, 
Willet  with  the  exception  of  introducing  the  trial  by 
the  jury,  carried  on  the  Court  as  it  had  been  before, 
under  the  Dutch  law  and  in  the  Dutch  language. 

Another  feature  was  afterwards  added  to  the  Court. 
In  the  Mayor's  Court  in  London  it  was  found  as  the 
Mayors  were  generally  laymen  and  frequently  changed, 
they  were  not  well  informed  in  respect  of  the  law,  and 
that  it  was  necessary  to  have  a  permanent  officer  who 
was  well  acquainted  with  it  attached  to  the  Court,  who 
could  assist  the  Mayor,  and  who  would  see  that  the 
records  of  the  Court  were  properly  kept;  and,  for  that 
purpose,  the  office  of  Recorder  was  created,  and  that 
officer  thereafter  sat  with  the  Mayor  as  a  permanent 
member  of  the  tribunal  to  whom  the  Mayor  could  refer 
when  any  question  or  doubt  arose  respecting  the  law. 
This  was  thought  to  be  also  desirable  in  New  York ; 
and  in  1683  the  corporation  of  the  city  sent  a  petition 
to  Gov.  Dongan  for  certain  municipal  changes,  among 
the  rest  that  a  Recorder  might  be  appointed  to  assist 
the  Mayor  in  the  Mayor's  Court,  which  the  Governor 
granted,  and  appointed  James  Graham,  who  was  one  of 
the  petitioners.  Recorder.  He  was  a  Scotchman  who 
came  to  the  Colony  in  1678,  and  Mrs.  Lamb  in  her 
* '  History  of  the  City  of  New  York, "  says  of  him  that  "  he 

196 


RUFUS    B.    COWING 


ROBERT    A.    VAN    WYCK. 


JAMKS    G.     O  GORMAN. 


GEORGE    F.    ROESCH. 


was  the  second  son  of  the  Marquis  of  Montrose;  "  that 
*'he  was  endowed  with  brilliant  intellectual  qualities, 
was  witty,  chivalrous,  communicative;  overflowed  with 
anecdote;  that  he  was  a  lawyer  who  had  already  at- 
tained distinction  at  the  bar,  and  a  man  of  great 
dignity;  of  fine  presence  and  a  master  of  rhetoric,  who 
in  his  tastes,  habits  and  methods  of  thought,  was  a  fair 
type  of  the  ancient  nobility  of  Great  Britain." 

This  is  a  fine  picture  of  an  attractive  and  very  accom- 
plished man;  but  not  one  word  of  it  is  true.  The  Mar- 
quis of  Montrose  had  no  second  son,  and  Lord  Bella- 
mont,  who  was  then  the  Governor  of  the  Province,  in 
one  of  his  letters  to  the  Board  in  London  that  had  the 
affairs  of  the  Colony  in  charge,  says  that  Graham  was 
bred  to  a  trade  and  neither  to  learning  nor  to  the  law, 
which  he  gives  as  the  reason  of  his  incompetency  in  the 
two  offices  which  he  held,  of  Attorney-General  and 
Recorder.  He  never  attained  any  distinction  whatever 
at  the  bar,  and  procured  those  offices  entirely  through 
personal  and  political  influence.  On  the  contrary.  Lord 
Bellamont  says  that  the  government  lost  many  cases 
through  Graham's  inability  as  Attorney-General  to 
draw  up  the  papers  properly;  and  Parmentier,  who 
was  an  educated  and  well-read  lawyer,  ridiculed  Graham 
for  his  ignorance  of  the  law.  As  to  his  brilliant  intel- 
lectual qualities,  a  master  of  rhetoric,  witty,  chivalrous, 
a  man  of  fine  presence  and  of  great  dignity,  I  have  in 
my  researches  found  no  allusion  to  any  of  these  charac- 
teristics. Mrs.  Lamb  refers  to  none ;  and  finally,  in 
respect  to  this  first  Recorder  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
Lord  Bellamont  removed  him  from  the  office  of  Attor- 


197 


ney-General  and  Recorder  because  he  was  incompetent 
and  corrupt. 

To  follow  the  history  of  the  Court  from  this  period  to 
the  year  1823  would  be  to  go  over  all  the  Mayors  and 
Recorders  who  sat  in  it  as  Judges.  It  will  suffice  to 
say  that  many  of  them  were  distinguished  men,  such 
as  Edward  Livingston,  the  author  of  the  penal  code  of 
Louisiana,  Chancellor  Kent,  Chief  Justice  Jones,  Jacob 
Radcliffe,  Judge  JosiahOgden  Hoffman,  De  Witt  Clinton, 
Cadwalader  D.  C olden,  and  Peter  A.  Jay.  In  the  year 
1823  it  was  felt  that  the  presiding  or  Chief  Judge  who 
had  theretofore  been  the  Mayor  on  the  civil  side  of  the 
Court,  ought  to  be  a  lawyer,  for  out  of  the  thirty-five 
Mayors  who  up  to  that  time  had  presided  in  it  as 
Judges,  only  three  of  them  had  been  lawyers.  Accord- 
ingly in  that  year,  an  act  was  passed  creating  what  was 
called  the  First  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas, 
who  v;as  required  to  be  of  the  degree  of  counsellor-of- 
law,  and  John  T.  Irving,  a  brother  of  Washington 
Irving,  was  appointed,  who  was  still  on  the  bench  when 
I  came  to  the  bar  ^fifty-eight  years  ago.  The  effect  of 
this  was  that  thereafter  the  Recorder  presided  in  the 
criminal  part  of  the  Court,  or,  as  this  was  afterwards 
called,  the  Court  of  Sessions,  and  Judge  Irving  sat  in 
the  civil  part  thereafter  known  only  as  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas.  The  Recorder  and  the  First  Judge 
could  lawfully  sit  in  either  Court,  but  neither  did,  and 
practically,  they  became  separate  tribunals.  Judge 
Irving  was  so  highly  esteemed  by  the  bar  as  a  Judge 
that  the  business  in  his  branch  of  the  Court  increased 
so  largely,  that  in  1834,  an  Associate  Judge  was 
created,    to   which   position    Michael    Ulshoeffer    was 

198 


appointed,  and  when  Judge  Irving  died  in  1838,  after 
being  upon  the  bench  for  seventeen  years,  an  act  was 
passed  by  which  another  associate  Judge  was  created, 
and  Judge  Ulshoeffer  became  First  Judge,  and  Daniel 
P.  Ingraham  was  appointed  Associate  Judge.  The 
business  grew  still  greater,  and  in  1839,  another  Associ- 
ate Judge  was  created,  Wm,  Inglis  was  appointed,  who 
was  my  immediate  predecessor.  The  Court  then  con- 
sisted of  three  Judges  which  by  the  Constitutional 
Amendment  of  1867  was  increased  thereafter  to  sfcc 
Judges. 

I  have  now,  sir,  done  what  I  agreed  to  do,  brought 
the  history  of  the  Court  down  to  the  time  that  I  became 
a  member  of  it,  which  I  was  for  forty-two  years.  Of 
that  period  in  its  history,  it  is  more  befitting  that 
another  than  myself  should  speak.  I  might  with 
propriety  refer  to  the  many  distinguished  lawyers  now 
passed  away,  who  came  before  me  during  that  long 
period,  and  as  a  survivor,  pay  my  tribute  to  their 
memory  by  pointing  out  their  distinguishing  character- 
istics, either  as  lawyers,  or  as  advocates.  It  would  be 
a  pleasant  exercise  of  memory  to  recall  the  displays  I 
have  witnessed  of  forensic  eloquence,  of  intellectual 
power,  of  legal  acuteness  and  legal  learning,  of  the 
adroitness,  skill  and  ability  with  which  cases  were 
managed,  and  the  tedium  of  trial  relieved  by  flashes  of 
wit  or  an  advantage  gained  by  a  telling  sarcasm ;  but 
to  do  so  would  exceed  the  time  I  have  prescribed  to 
myself. 

Of  course,  sir,  I  cannot  realize  without  some  feeling, 
that  a  Court  will  cease  to  exist  to-morrow,  in  which  so 
many  years  of  my  life  were  passed,  in  which  I  have 

199 


seen  such  displays  of  legal  ability,  and  I  might  say 
genius,  of  which  I  have  so  many  memories  both  of  law- 
yers and  of  Judges.  Of  the  eighteen  Judges  who  were 
associated  with  me  in  the  Court,  seven  only  now  sur- 
vive, and  of  the  lawyers  who  came  before  it  and  have 
now  passed  away,  I  recall  many,  who  in  natural  endow- 
ment, legal  knowledge  and  legal  training,  would  in 
any  country  where  the  law  is  cultivated  and  respected, 
be  regarded  as  distinguished  ornaments  of  their  pro- 
fession. All  of  them  I  knew  personally ;  some  of  them 
most  intimately ;  and  when  at  my  advanced  age  I  recall 
what  they  were  in  the  forensic  arena,  the  charm  of 
their  society  in  private  life,  with  all  the  associations 
and  memories  of  my  past  professional  career  which  an 
occasion  like  this  awakens,  I  may  in  closing  my 
remarks  give  adequate  expression  to  it  by  quoting  a 
verse  of  a  well-known  song  of  the  poet  Moore : 

' '  I  feel  like  one  who  treads  alone 
A  banquet  hall  deserted : 
Whose  lights  are  fled,  whose  garlands  dead 
And  all  but  he  departed." 

ADDRESS    OF    MR.     WILLIAM    ALLEN    BUTLER. 

I  beg  leave  to  second  the  resolutions  which  have  been 
offered  by  my  brother,  McClure.  The  intervening 
history  of  the  Court,  to  which  we  have  just  listened, 
adds  additional  interest  to  the  dignity  of  this  occasion. 
Ten  years  ago  this  very  day,  December  30th,  1885,  at 
this  very  hour,  and  in  this  very  place,  the  members  of 
the  bench  and  bar  assembled  to  give  expression  to 
their  respect  for  Chief  Justice  Charles  P.  Daly  on  his 
retirement  from  the  bench  of  this  Court  (with  which 

200 


he  had  been  connected  for  a  period  of  nearly  fifty-two 
years)  under  a  mandate  of  the  Constitution  which 
limited  his  term  of  service.  After  a  decade  he  is, 
happily,  here  with  us,  a  witness  to  the  retiring  of  the 
Court  itself  under  the  mandate  of  the  present  Constitu- 
tion which  has  decreed  its  extinction  as  a  separate 
branch  of  the  judiciary  of  this  State  and  city,  and  sum- 
moned its  Judges  to  another  sphere  of  judicial  labor. 
In  the  expiring  hours  of  this  year,  we  are  closing  a 
most  important  and  interesting  chapter  in  the  annals 
of  our  jurisprudence,  and  we  are  here  with  one  accord, 
so  far  as  it  is  in  our  power,  to  set  the  stamp  of  appro- 
bation upon  the  completed  record  of  this  Court. 

It  is  altogether  fitting  that  the  event  be  thus 
solemnized.  What  the  ex-Chief  Justice  has  read 
as  the  result  of  his  researches  and  the  fruits  of  his 
memory,  while  it  may  not  have  been  beyond  the  knowl- 
edge of  some  of  us  as  to  the  origin  and  course  of 
development  of  this  Honorable  Court,  was  none  the 
less  instructive  and  interesting. 

The  familiar  designation  of  the  ''Common  Pleas" 
had  its  origin  in  an  early  period  of  the  jurisprudence  of 
England.  Sir  Edward  Coke  claimed  for  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  an  existence  ante-dating  Magna  Charta. 
Lord  Campbell  assigns  its  origin  to  the  reign  of 
Edward  I.,  "the  English  Justinian,"  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  thirteenth  century.  From  that  time  it  has  held 
its  place  as  the  title  of  one  of  the  great  judicial  depart- 
ments of  Great  Britain  and  in  the  recent  reorganization 
of  the  English  Courts  the  time-honored  appellation  is 
perpetuated  in  the  "Common  Pleas  Division."  With 
us,   the  name  of  "Common  Pleas, "  long  ago  adopted 


20I 


and  naturalized  as  designating  a  part  of  our  judicial  sys- 
tem, is  a  familiar  sound,  interwoven  with  all  our 
studies  of  the  law  as  a  science  and  with  all  our  practice 
at  the  bar.  Courts  of  Common  Pleas  in  the  different 
counties  of  the  State  as  they  existed  in  the  Colonial 
days,  were  continued  by  the  Revised  Statutes  for  many 
years.  But  especially  was  the  ** Common  Pleas"  a 
household  word  in  our  municipality,  with  a  touch  of 
homlier  significance  than  ever  belonged  to  the  terms 
"Superior"  or  '*  Supreme"  because  more  nearly 
kindred  to  the  common  interests  and  rights  over  which 
it  threw  the  imperial  segis  of  the  law. 

Speaking  for  the  older  members  of  the  bar,  I  may  be 
permitted  to  recall  the  associations  of  this  Court  with 
the  City  Hall,  which  has  been  more  fortunate  in 
escaping  a  projected  transplantation.  An  outgrowth 
of  the  Mayor's  Court,  and  including  that  official,  the 
Recorder  and  the  Aldermen  among  its  nominal  mem- 
bers, the  proper  place  for  the  sitting  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  was  the  chief  municipal  building  and  it 
was  in  the  City  Hall  that  its  terms  were  held.  During 
its  residence  there  and  after  it  had  outgrown  con- 
nection with  the  city  officers  and  was  composed  of  its 
own  Judges,  it  attracted  to  itself  that  large  share  of 
important  litigations  which  it  has  always  retained.  My 
earliest  professional  recollections  of  the  Court  are 
associated  with  Judge  Ulshoeffer  and  Judge  Ingraham 
as  its  presiding  Judges,  and  with  such  leaders  of  the 
bar  as  James  T.  Brady,  James  W.  Gerard,  Francis  B. 
Cutting,  Charles  O 'Conor,  and  that  admirable  lawyer 
whose  peculiar  field  of  practice  was  the  Common  Pleas, 
Augustus  F.  Smith.     I  well  remember  one  of  my  own 


I 


first  cases,  a  very  notable  one,  before  Judge  Woodruff 
and  a  jury  in  which,  during  a  protracted  trial,  the  legal 
acumen  of  Marshall  S.  Bidwell,  Daniel  Lord  and 
Benjamin  F.  Butler  were  supplemented  by  the  match- 
less forensic  eloquence  of  Ogden  Hoffman.  True,  he 
strayed  off,  to  my  dismay,  on  the  eve  of  his  summing 
up,  to  a  Saint  Nicholas  dinner,  leaving  me  to  spend 
the  midnight  hours  on  a  brief  whose  dry  details  he 
transmuted  into  a  golden  current  of  speech  by  the 
magic  of  that  native  gift  of  persuasion  in  which  he 
"  snatched  a  grace  beyond  the  reach  of  Art."  If  I  had 
taken  any  exception  to  his  treatment  of  myself  it  was 
cured  by  the  verdict.  I  might  name  others  who  are 
familiar  to  my  recollection.  But  they  have  passed 
away.  When  the  Court  was  removed  to  this  Court 
House,  many  whom  I  see  here  to-day  will,  with  me, 
bear  witness  to  the  unvarying  courtesy,  the  strict 
integrity  and  the  conspicuous  ability  with  which  Chief 
Justice  Charles  P.  Daly  administered  the  law,  and  to 
the  exhibition  of  the  same  qualities  by  those  who  have 
occupied  the  bench  of  this  tribunal. 

Perhaps  we  ought  not  to  be  unmindful  that  such 
incidents  as  the  passing  away  of  Courts  are  no  novel- 
ties in  our  juridicial  history.  Since  my  own  admission 
to  the  bar,  in  1846,  I  have  witnessed  the  extinction  of 
the  Court  of  Errors,  a  tribunal  modeled  after  the 
highest  Appellate  Court  of  England  and  coeval  with 
the  beginning  of  our  constitutional  government.  The 
Court  of  Chancery  with  all  its  immemorial  associations 
and  vast  powers,  went  out  of  existence  at  the  same 
time ;  both  of  these  time-honored  tribunals  were  swept 
away  by  the  tide  of  legal  reform  but  not  oblivion.   The 

203 


authority  of  their  decisions  was  never  more  controlling- 
than  to-day;  and  they  enshrine  the  names  and 
memories  of  such  jurists  as  Spencer  and  Bronson, 
Verplanck,  Kent  and  Walworth.  So  it  will  be  with 
this  Court.  It  will  hold  its  place  in  history;  its  Judges 
will  hold  their  place  in  the  long  line  of  judicial  succes- 
sion. With  our  natural  regrets  at  the  termination  of 
its  existence  we  can  only  hope  that  the  new  departure  to 
follow  in  our  judiciary  system  may  be  a  step  forward 
in  the  onward  march  of  American  civilization.  In  any 
event,  we  are  sure  that  you,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  your 
associates  on  the  bench,  will  carry  with  you  the 
respect  and  esteem  of  the  bar  of  this  city  and  that  in 
your  new  sphere  of  service  there  will  be  no  lowering  of 
the  high  standard  of  judicial  integrity  and  ability 
which  will  always  be  imperishably  linked  with  the  now 
historic  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 

ADDRESS    OF    MR.     \VM.     B    HORNBLOWER. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Brethren  of  the  Bar: — After 
what  has  been  said  so  well  and  so  eloquently  by  my 
brother,  Butler,  and  after  the  remarks  that  have  been 
made  by  the  late  Chief  Justice  of  this  Court,  and  after 
the  resolutions  that  have  been  so  forcibly  and 
eloquently  presented  by  my  brother  McClure,  my  task 
is  indeed  a  simple  one;  I  can  but  echo  what  has 
already  been  said.  My  recollection  of  this  Court  does 
not  extend  back  further  than  the  judicial  life  of  the 
present  Chief  Justice  of  the  Court.  I  tried  my  first 
case  in  this  Court  before  one  who  is  still  a  member  of 
the  bench  of  this  tribunal,  and  I  can  therefore  speak  of 
the  history  of  the  Court  only  from  what  I  have  heard 

204 


and  learned  from  the  reports  and  from  the  traditions  of 
the  bar.  The  traditional,  conservative  spirit  of  our 
profession  has  hitherto  spared  this  Court  from 
demolition.  We  cling  tenaciously  to  old  forms  and  old 
names;  and  we  do  so  because  we  believe — and 
experience  has  shown — that  old  forms  and  old  names 
have  their  value.  But  we  get  tired  of  being  asked  the 
continual  question  from  our  clients,  and  the  world  at 
large :  Why  do  you  do  this  ?  Why  do  you  retain  these 
Courts  ?  Why  do  you  have  a  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
and  a  Superior  Court  and  a  Supreme  Court  ?  All  with 
the  same  jurisdiction,  except  for  certain  technicalities 
which  it  defies  the  most  astute  lawyer  sometimes  to 
find  out;  and  so  when  the  profession  is  finally  wearied 
of  answering  the  question,  why,  they  yield  to  the 
popular  sentiment  and  allow  the  old  landmarks  to  be 
swept  away.  But,  sir,  it  is  eminently  appropriate  that, 
when  such  a  constitutional  change  in  the  judiciary 
system  of  the  State  is  about  to  take  place,  some  public 
notice  of  the  change  should  be  taken  by  the  members 
of  the  bar.  It  is  especially  fitting  that  when  this  change 
involves  the  passing  out  of  existence  of  two  of  the 
principal  Courts  of  this  city  and  county — the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  for  the  City  and  County  of  New  York 
and  the  Superior  Court  of  the  City  of  New  York — that 
a  tribute  should  be  paid  by  the  younger  as  well  as  the 
older  members  of  the  bar  to  the  past  records  of  those 
Courts  on  behalf  of  the  bar  and  the  community. 

These  two  courts,  sir,  have  become  part  of  the  his- 
tory of  this  city  and  county  and  they  will  remain  part 
of  that  history,  and  their  decisions  will  remain  part  of 
the  jurisprudence  of   this  State   for  all  time   to  come. 

205 


This  Court  of  Common  Pleas  traces  its  record  back,  as 
we  are  told  by  the  venerable  ex-Chief  Justice   of   the 
Court  who  still  lives  and  moves  among  us,  far  beyond 
the  foundations  of  the  republic.     My  function  to-day  is 
not  to  relate  the  history  of  this  Court.       I  shall  refer — 
and  I  trust  I  may  do  so  without  invidious  comparison — 
to  one  period  in  the  history  of  this  Court  which  has 
always  made  a  great  impression  on  my  mind ;    I  refer 
to  that  period  covered  by  the  Reports  of  E.   D.   Smith, 
containing  the  opinions  of  that  strong  triumvirate  then 
in  the   prime   of   early   manhood — Judges   Ingraham, 
Daly  and   WoodrufiE.      The   four  volumes  of    E.    D. 
Smith's  Reports,  I  do  not  think  can  be  matched  any- 
where for  terse,  vigorous,  lucid  and  accurate  statements 
of  the  principles  of  law.       They  will  be  found  cited  in 
the  Court  of  Appeals  Reports,  I  believe,  more  frequently 
than  any  other  reports  of  the  purely  local  Courts.       Of 
that  triumvirate,  one — Judge  Ingraham — became  after- 
wards the  Presiding  Justice  of  the  General  Term  of  the 
Supreme  Court   for   this    department  during  the  very 
stormy  period  of  the    history  of  the  bench  and  bar; 
another — Judge  Woodruff — subsequently  served  a  term 
as  a  Judge  of  the  Superior  Court   of  the   City  of  New 
York,  and  then,  after  a  brief  period  of  active  practice 
at  the  bar,  became  a  member  of  the  Court  of  Appeals 
of  this  State  and  ended  his  career  as  Circuit  Judge  of 
the   United    States   for   the    Second  Judicial  District, 
dying  at   the  comparatively  early  age   of  sixty-three 
years,    after   a  life  of  almost   uninterrupted    judicial 
labor;      the     third     of    the     triumvirate,    afterwards 
Chief  Justice  of  this   Court,  is   still   with   us,  as  has 
already  been  said,  full  of  years  and  honors :  no  one  can 

206 


think  and  speak  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  with- 
out thinking  of  Charles  P.  Daly.  Probably  there  are 
not  a  dozen  men  in  this  room  who  can  remember  the 
time  when  Charles  P.  Daly  was  not  a  Judge  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas.  To  this  Court  he  gave, 
practically,  the  whole  of  his  active  life,  retiring  only 
when  he  had  reached  the  constitutional  limit  of  age, 
and  then  retiring  with  the  respect  and  esteem  of  the 
entire  profession.  I  shall  not  stop  to  enumerate  the 
other  distinguished  Judges  who  have  sat  upon  this 
bench,  many  of  whom  have  subsequently  adorned  the 
benches  of  other  Courts,  some  of  whom  are  still  living 
and  two  of  whom  are  now  able  and  useful  members  of 
the  Supreme  Court  bench  in  this  district.  Nor  would 
it  be  fitting  that  I  should  speak  of  those  who  now  com- 
pose the  membership  of  this  Court,  except  to  assure 
them,  as  has  already  been  done,  that  they  end  their 
judicial  careers  in  this  tribunal  with  the  thorough 
regard  and  respect  of  those  who  have  had  the  pleasure 
of  appearing  before  them,  and  that  it  is  a  source  of  sat- 
isfaction to  us  all  to  know  that  their  services  are  not 
lost  to  the  community  and  that  they,  as  Justices  of  the 
Supreme  Court  will  still  continue  to  be  useful  and  hon- 
ored public  officials.  There  are  many  things  in  the  new 
judicial  machinery  of  the  Constitution  of  1894,  which 
I,  for  one,  would  have  had  otherwise.  I  regret,  for 
instance,  that  the  Constitution  has,  by  a  hard-and-fast 
rule  prevented  us  from  availing  ourselves  of  the  judi- 
cial ability  found  among  the  Judges  of  these  two 
Courts  for  use  in  the  Appellate  tribunal.  But  consti- 
tutional changes  always  work  some  injustice  and  hard- 
ship and  some  temporary  evils.       It  has  been  pointed 

207 


out  by  the  ex-Chief  Justice,  ^nd  Mr.  Butler,  that  the 
prototype  of  this  Court — the  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
of  Great  Britain — traced  its  warrant  from  the  Magna 
Charta,  and  so  as  this  Court  goes  out  of  existence  we 
desire  to  put  upon  record  our  tribute  of  respect  and  to 
assure  them  that  they  have  followed  in  the  footsteps  set 
them  by  the  eminent  Judges  of  that  tribunal  whose 
name  they  bore  and  we  desire  to  express  our  hearty 
good  wishes  to  the  members  of  the  Court  who  pass  to 
the  Supreme  Court  and  before  whom  we  hope  we  shall 
be  privileged  for  many  years  to  come  to  practice  in 
behalf  of  our  clients  and  from  whom  we  know  that  we 
shall  always  receive  patient,  careful  and  conscientious 
hearing. 

ADDRESS  OF  MR.  EDWARD  LAUTERBACH. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  : — There  is  an  air  of 
solemnity  in  these  proceedings  which  I  think  is  by 
no  means  justified  by  the  facts. 

The  nomenclature  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  is 
to  be  lost ;  its  rules,  which  varied  in  some  respects  from 
the  rules  of  other  Courts,  will  no  longer  exist;  the 
allotment  of  the  Judges  will  be  to  special  functions 
somewhat  differing  from  those  heretofore  exercised; 
but  the  spirit  that  has  animated  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  and  served  to  make  it  in  public  estimation  what 
it  is,  its  kindness  and  indulgence,  its  fairness  and 
impartiality,  its  high  tone  and  dignity  will  be  carried 
with  it  and  with  its  Judges  into  the  new  sphere  of 
activity  to  which  they  have  been  transferred  by  recent 
constitutional  provisions. 

There  is  not  to  be  an  absorbtion  or  elimination  of 

208 


t  his  Court's  best  attributes.  An  apotheosis  is  to  take 
place — a  translation  from  one  realm  to  another,  neither 
higher  nor  greater  though  somewhat  different. 

When  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  with  its  untar- 
nished record,  its  ancient  and  interesting  history,  and  all 
that  has  endered  it  to  us  above  and  beyond  all  others, 
becomes  assimilated  with  another  kindred  tribunal,  its 
individuality  will  tend  to  strengthen  it,  to  fortify  it,  to  add 
to  its  merit  and  happily  without  the  extinction  of  any  of 
those  of  its  own  distinguishing  characteristics  which 
have  made  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  for  the  City  and 
County  of  New  York  the  idol  at  least  of  the  younger 
if  not  of  all  the  members  of  the  New  York  Bar. 

No  one  more  fitting  to  have  delivered  the  principal 
address  of  the  day  than  the  nestor  of  our  bar,  Mr.  Will- 
iam Allen  Butler,  could  have  been  selected,  for  his 
career  conjoined  with  that  of  his  illustrious  father,  Mr. 
Benjamin  Franklin  Butler,  the  leader  of  the  bar  in  his 
day,  are  coincident  almost  from  the  beginning  to  the 
very  end  with  that  of  the  Court  in  whose  presence  we 
now  stand. 

The  addresses  already  made,  the  interesting  history 
of  the  Court  contained  in  the  monograph  which  opens 
the  first  volume  of  E.  D.  Smith's  Reports,  and  which 
is  the  result  of  the  scholarly  research  of  Mr.  O'Calla- 
ghan  and  of  the  eminent  former  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Court,  supplemented  as  it  is  by  the  statement  which  the 
latter  has  just  read  to  us,  renders  any  further  historical 
allusion  or  panegyric  unnecessary. 

It  is,  I  assume,  that  as  a  representative  of  those  mem- 
bers of  the  bar  to  whom  this  Court  has  been  most  helpful 
by  encouragement  and  by  precept,  those  to  whom  admis- 

209 


sion  to  its  portals  was  not  accorded  by  the  law  school 
diploma,  those  whose  struggling  steps  were  unaided  by 
special  tuition  and  whose  path  to  the  cherished  goal 
was  not  rendered  easy  by  well  qualified  pedagogues 
and  professors,  those  whose  earlier  experience  after 
admission  was  limited  more  particularly  to  that  acquired 
in  the  District  Courts  and  in  the  former  Marine  Court, 
now  the  City  Court,  that  I  am  called  upon  to  express 
on  their  behalf  the  sincere  gratitude  owing  by  them  to 
this  Court  for  its  special  and  thoroughly  appreciated 
interest  in  their  behalf. 

Possessed  of  sole  and  final  appellate  jurisdiction  in 
this  class  of  cases  it  was  here  that  swift  redress  from 
injustice  to  the  litigant  in  these  lower  Courts,  not 
always  presided  over,  as  is  now  the  case,  by  men  of 
ability  and  fairness,  could  be  and  was  readily  obtained ; 
but  what  was  of  more  consequence  than  their  affirm- 
ance or  reversal,  was  the  knowledge  that  every  case, 
however  lowly  the  parties  in  interest,  however  trifling  the 
amount  involved,  would  secure  patient  and  attentive 
consideration,  and  the  young  advocates  of  these  causes 
the  same  generous  treatment  as  was  afforded  to  their 
leaders  in  the  more  important  branches  of  the  law. 

On  behalf  of  these,  hundreds  of  whom  owe  subse- 
quent successful  careers  mainly  to  the  encouragement 
so  received,  I  bear  a  message  of  most  sincere,  earnest 
and  heartfelt  thanks  and  gratitude  to,  and  of  love  and 
affection  for  the  present  members  of  this  Court  and 
their  predecessors. 

Nor  do  we  fail  to  remember  the  contrast  which  was 
afforded  by  this  Court  during  the  period  to  which  ref- 


2IO 


erence  was  made  to-day  when  other  tribunals  were 
unduly  affected  by  political  influences. 

Never  shaken  in  its  serenity,  never  unmindful  of 
judicial  propriety  and  judicial  decorum,  unswerved  by 
political  power  or  influence,  the  temptations  to  the 
youthful  practitioner  to  yield  to  the  methods  then 
prevalent  was  the  more  readily  shunned  because  of  the 
rigid  standard  of  professional  and  judicial  honor  here 
maintained. 

When  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1894,  of  which 
I  had  the  honor  to  be  a  member,  was  convened,  the 
spirit  of  reform  so  widely  prevalent  and  which  had  for 
its  cardinal  principle  the  accomplishment  of  changes 
from  existing  conditions,  whether  for  the  better  or  for 
the  worse,  became  rife  at  its  sessions,  and  to  such  an 
extent  that  it  was  seriously  mooted  not  only  to  abolish 
the  Superior  Court  and  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas, 
but  to  terminate  the  terms  of  office  of  their  incumbent 
Judges. 

Happily  this  spirit  was  of  but  short  duration,  and  it 
was  generally  conceded  that  the  personnel  of  all  the 
Judges  and  the  high  repute  of  those  Courts,  justified  a 
consolidation  of  the  Courts  without  the  curtailment  of 
any  term  of  office. 

Consolidation  was  doubtless  essential.  From  various 
causes  differences  of  procedure  prevailed,  which  might 
have  been  removed,  but  vital  differences  in  jurisdiction 
and  in  power,  some  of  which  could  only  have  been 
adjusted  by  constitutional  amendment  also  prevailed, 
which  subserved  no  useful  purpose,  and  which  tend- 
ed greatly  to  vex,  annoy  and  confuse  the  practi- 
tioner and   the  litigant,  and  so,  for  these  and   other 

211 


reasons,    the   consolidation    Was   effected,    and  wisely 
effected. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  limitations  placed 
upon  the  transferred  Judges  in  the  exercise  of  judicial 
functions  in  the  newly  created  Court  were  wise.  Cer- 
tainly nothing  in  the  individuality  of  these  Judges  jus- 
tified any  discrimination,  but  this  is  after  all  only  a 
minor  matter,  though  regrettable,  and  arose  not  from 
a  desire  to  make  an  invidious  distinction  among  the 
Courts,  but  from  the  necessity  of  the  creation  of  a 
larger  Appellate  tribunal,  occasioned  by  the  com- 
mendable abolition  by  the  convention  of  the  limitation 
of  appeals  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  to  judgments  of 
more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  which  will  increase  the 
volume  of  business  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  and  to  the 
unwillingness  of  the  convention  to  afford  relief  to  that 
Court  either  by  addition  to  its  numbers  or  by  provid- 
ing for  a  Second  Division  of  the  Court  in  the  event  of 
any  exigency.  Membership  in  this  Appellate  Division, 
it  was  not  unnaturally  provided,  should  at  the  outset  be 
confined  to  existing  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

You  gentlemen  who  now  constitute  this  Court  wher- 
ever you  may  be,  whatever  tribunal  you  may  grace,  in 
whatever  circumstances  you  may  find  yourselves,  rest 
assured  that  our  appreciation  for  you  will  never  be  less 
than  it  always  has  been ;  greater  it  cannot  be. 

ADDRESS    OF    SURROGATE    JOHN    H.    V.     ARNOLD. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  : — I  do  not  rise  here 
for  the  purpose  of  supplementing  or  endeavoring  to 
supplement  by  any  language  of  my  own  what  has  been 
so  well  said  by  the  eloquent  speakers  to  whom  we  have 

212 


listened,  on  the  lines  they  have  pursued.  Every  enco- 
mium which  has  passed  from  their  lips  must  meet  a 
ready  response  in  the  breast  of  every  citizen  of  New 
York.  The  services  of  the  long  line  of  distinguished 
jurists  who  have  dignified  and  graced  the  bench  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas  through  so  many  years  must 
be  accorded  that  meed  of  praise  which  belongs  to  ear- 
nest and  painstaking  work,  conspicuous  ability,  unim- 
peachable integrity,  devoted  to  public  service.  I  rise 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  recalling  on  this  interesting 
occasion,  to  which  it  may  be  appropriate,  the  associa- 
tions which  have  long  existed  between  the  Surrogate's 
Court  of  the  City  and  County  of  New  York,  of  which  I 
have  the  honor  to  be  a  representative,  and  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas.  And  I  shall  do  so  very  briefly  and  I 
know  very  imperfectly.  We  are  told  by  the  learned 
Chief  Justice  to  whom  we  have  listened  with  so  much 
pleasure  here  to-day,  that  the  Mayor's  Court  of  New 
York,  which  was  in  a  sense  a  predecessor  of  this  Court 
for  a  considerable  period  exercised  jurisdiction  over 
the  probate  of  Wills  and  grants  of  letters  of  adminis- 
tration, and  over  the  settlement  of  estates;  and  many 
Wills  involving  titles  to  valuable  real  estate  in  this  city 
and  county,  were  probated  in  that  Court,  and  were  to 
be  found  among  its  records.  It  was  then  not  at  all 
unnaturally,  although  perhaps  not  due  at  all  to  that  cir- 
cumstance, that,  when  provision  was  made  in  the 
statutes  of  this  State  for  the  filling  of  a  vacancy  caused 
by  death  of  the  Surrogate,  the  duty  of  filling  that 
vacancy,  for  the  time  being,  was  assigned  to  and 
devolved  upon  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  And  it 
was  while  serving   as  temporary  Surrogate  upon  the 

213 


death  of  Surrogate  West,  thatvthe  learned  Chief  Justice 
of  this  Court  in  the  matter  of  the  Brick  Estate, 
for  the  first  time  set  forth  clearly  and  succinctly 
the  history  of  the  Probate  Courts  of  this  State,  of  the 
powers  and  jurisdiction  which  they  had  exercised,  and 
their  sources,  subjects  which  were  involved  at  that  time 
in  very  much  of  obscurity,  in  fact  had  been  substanti- 
ally pronounced  both  by  bench  and  bar  as  untraceable. 
He  pursued  his  labors  on  those  subjects  with  assiduity 
and  prodigious  industry,  reaching  in  every  case  plain 
and  incontrovertible  conclusions.  His  work  was 
commended  most  gracefully  by  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
as  evincing  a  patience  and  accuracy  of  research  which 
left  nothing  to  be  added ;  and  without  doubt  his  work 
in  this  respect  gave  a  great  impetus  to  that  legislation 
which  subsequently  followed  and  by  which  was  inaugu- 
rated the  comprehensive  system  of  procedure  which 
now  governs  and  directs  the  Surrogate's  Courts  of  this 
State,  where  before  all  was  crudity  and  imperfection. 
Provision  has  also  been  made  in  the  statutes  of  this  State 
for  the  transfer  of  certain  issues  of  fact  arising  in  the  Sur- 
rogate's Court,  for  trial  by  jury  in  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  also  for  the  exercise  by  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  of  the  powers  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Surrogate's 
Court  in  cases  of  absence,  sickness,  disability  and  dis- 
qualification on  the  part  of  the  Surrogate,  and,  as  occa- 
sion has  arisen,  that  jurisdiction  and  power  has  been  so 
exercised.  But  there  has  been  a  very  important  class 
of  cases  arising  out  of  contests  of  Wills  originating  in 
the  Surrogate's  Court  which  under  provisions  of  law 
have  been  transferred  to  this  Court  for  jury  trial.  The 
despatch  of  those   cases  has  involved  a  great  deal  of 

214 


additional  labor  on  the  part  of  the  Judges  of  this  Court. 
That  labor  has  been  assumed  by  them  cheerfully,  and 
always  performed  most  satisfactorily  and  to  the  great 
relief  of  the  Surrogate,  and  those  services  were  ren- 
dered at  times  when  their  own  business  pressed  heavily 
upon  them.  The  Justices  of  this  Court  are  entitled  to 
the  gratitude  of  the  Surrogates,  and  I  know  that  in 
tendering  my  acknowledgment  of  the  same  to  them 
now  upon  this  occasion,  I  speak  not  only  for  my  asso- 
ciates and  myself,  but  for  my  learned  predecessors  in 
the  office. 

The  Judges  of  this  Court  will  take  with  them  into 
their  new  sphere  of  action,  our  best  wishes,  and  the 
trust  that  they  will  long  continue  to  serve  the  public. 

ADDRESS    OF    CHIEF    JUSTICE    RUFUS    B.     COWING,    OF    THE 
COURT    OF    GENERAL    SESSIONS. 

In  order  not  to  be  prolix,  but  brief,  and  to  keep  my 
remarks  within  your  indulgence  and  patience,  I  have 
jotted  down  a  few  sentences  which  I  beg  respectfully 
to  read  to  you  as  remarks  coming  from  the  appropriate 
representative  of  a  Court  so  recently  in  the  past  asso- 
ciated with  this. 

The  committee  appointed  by  the  bar  to  arrange  the 
programme  for  this  meeting  has  invited  me  as  the 
senior  Judge  of  the  Court  of  General  Sessions  to  be 
present  and  participate  in  its  proceedings. 

The  new  Constitution  of  our  State  has  expressly 
decreed  that  on  and  after  next  Wednesday,  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas  shall  cease  to  exist,  and  that  its  juris- 
diction and  Judges  shall  be  transferred  to  the  Supreme 
Court.     We  are  assembled  here  to-day  to  take  recog- 

215 


nition  of  this  fact  and  to,  in  some  appropriate  and 
formal  way,  record  for  all  future  time  our  respect  and 
admiration  for  a  Court  which  has  in  the  past  for  so 
many  years  performed  so  conspicuous  a  part  in  admin- 
istering justice  in  the  State.  We  cannot  fully  appre- 
ciate the  important  part  which  this  ancient  and  honor- 
able Court  has  taken  in  administering  the  laws  of  the 
State  without  taking  into  consideration  the  varied 
extent  of  jurisdiction  w^hich  its  Judges  have  from  time 
to  time  exercised. 

It  is  not  only  a  Court  of  very  large  and  extensive 
original  jurisdiction,  but  it  has  appellate  jurisdiction  in 
all  cases  on  appeal  from  the  City  Court  and  the  several 
District  Courts  of  the  city ;  and  its  Judges  by  statute 
are  empowered  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  Surrogate 
and  also  to  preside  in  and  over  criminal  trials  in 
the  Court  of  General  Sessions.  In  the  performance  of 
the  very  pleasing  duty  assigned  to-  me  in  this  after- 
noon's proceedings  I  shall  confine  my  remarks  to  a 
very  brief  review  of  the  relation  which  this  Court 
bears  to  the  Court  over  which  I  have  the  honor  to 
preside. 

Over  two  hundred  years  ago  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  and  the  Court  of  General  Sessions  were  created, 
and  have  formed  a  part  of  the  judicial  system  of  the 
State  ever  since.  While  both  Courts  had  at  one  time 
both  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction,  eventually  the  two 
Courts  were  reorganized,  with  distinct  jurisdiction 
which  they  have  since  exercised:  the  Common  Pleas 
for  the  trial  of  civil  actions,  and  the  General  Sessions 
for  the  trial  of  criminal  cases,  although  both  tribunals 
were  composed  of  the  same  persons.     Up  to  the  time 

216 


\.M^.^Laj. 


y^/Q  ^^h^i^^^^^  ^ 


of  the  granting  of  the  Dongan  Charter  in  1686  the 
Mayor's  Court  was  the  principal  Court  of  the  Province, 
and  exercised  all  the  jurisdiction  afterwards  conferred 
upon  this  Court,  and  the  General  Sessions.  In  fact, 
the  Mayor's  Court  not  only  at  that  time  performed 
judicial  duties  but  also  legislative  and  executive. 
Without  entering  more  minutely  into  the  rise  and  pro- 
gress of  these  two  ancient  and  important  Courts,  let 
me  say  a  few  words  in  reference  to  my  own. 

The  Court  of  General  Sessions  is  in  point  of  fact  the 
highest  criminal  Court  in  the  county.  It  disposes  of 
over  nine-tenths  of  the  felonies  committed  and  triable 
in  the  county,  as  well  as  many  of  the  misdemeanors ; 
and  its  importance  in  maintaining  the  peace  and  good 
order  of  society  cannot  well  be  overestimated.  The 
Court,  while  it  has  not  always  been  presided  over  by 
gentlemen  learned  in  the  law,  has  always  been  held  in 
great  respect  by  the  people.  For  many  years  the 
Recorder  was  the  only  lawyer  who  presided  over  its 
trials,  assisted  by  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen ;  and  this 
continued  down  to  1853  when  by  express  law  the 
Recorder  and  the  City  Judge  were  each  empowered  to 
hold  the  Court  without  the  aid  and  assistance  of  either 
the  Mayor  or  Aldermen.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Court 
is  purely  criminal  and  in  this  respect  outranks  all  others 
except  the  Supreme  Court,  which  is  of  co-ordinate 
jurisdiction.  It  has  had  upon  its  bench  many  men  of 
great  legal  ability  and  distinction,  among  whom  may- 
be mentioned  Recorders  Riker,  Hoffman  and  Smythe; 
and  it  has  through  its  trials  done  very  much  in  settling 
the  criminal  law  and  practice  not  only  in  this  State  but 
in  the  United  States. 


217 


Without  in  any  way  desiri^ng  to  detract  from  the 
great  importance  to  the  people  of  the  civil  jurisdiction 
of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  in  my  judgment  not 
the  least,  but  the  most  important  jurisdiction  is  that 
conferred  by  statute  upon  the  Judges  of  this  Court  to 
preside  over  criminal  trials  in  the  Court  of  General 
Sessions.  It  is  a  jurisdiction  which  for  many  years 
has  rarely  been  exercised,  but  nevertheless  has  at  times 
been  exercised  with  great  ability  and  benefit  to  the 
public.  It  is  a  matter  of  congratulation  that  while  the 
grand  old  Court  of  Common  Pleas  will  soon  go  out  of 
existence  its  jurisdiction  and  Judges  will  be  transferred 
to  a  higher  Court  so  that  the  people  will  still  continue 
to  have  the  benefit  and  advantage  of  the  large 
experience  and  great  ability  of  its  Judges.  A  Court 
which  has  filled  so  large  a  place  in  the  judicial  system 
of  the  State  for  so  long  a  period,  which  has  accom- 
plished such  a  vast  amount  of  important  judicial  work, 
as  is  evidenced  by  its  records  and  reports,  which  has 
had  upon  its  bench  so  many  distinguished  and  illus- 
trious Judges  and  jurists,  which  has  done  so  much  to 
organize  and  perfect  one  of  the  most  perfect  and  com- 
plete judicial  systems  of  the  world,  needs  no  tablet  to 
perpetuate  its  memory  and  fame.  But  so  long  as  the 
memory  of  the  present  generation  shall  last,  and 
recorded  history  shall  continue  to  chronicle  the  rise 
and  progress  of  our  Nation  and  State,  will  the  memory, 
fame  and  distinguished  service  of  the  grand  old  Court 
be  handed  down  into  the  future. 

I  had  jotted  down  some  historical  matters.  But  it  is 
not  my  purpose  to  allude  to  them  in  any  way,  shape  or 
manner.      The   learned   Chief    Justice    has    given    a 


2ll 


resume  of  all  that  need  be  said  at  this  time;  and  I  feel 
that  for  me  to  further  trespass  on  your  indulgence  and 
patience  at  this  hour  would  not  only  be  cruel  to  you, 
but  would  be  unjust  to  speakers,  several  of  whom  are 
to  follow  me.  But  I  want  to  say  to  the  Judges  of  the 
Common  Pleas  that  I  know  they  will  carry  with  them 
the  respect  and  confidence  of  all  the  members  of  the 
bar  into  that  higher  sphere  of  action  into  which  they 
are  to  go;  and  while  the  name  of  "Common  Pleas" 
will  no  longer  be  heard  or  mentioned  except  in  reports 
and  decisions,  I  am  sure  that  the  Judges  themselves 
will  always  be  remembered  with  the  highest  respect 
and  gratitude  for  the  services  which  they  have  per- 
formed to  the  people  of  this  city  and  State. 

ADDRESS     OF    CHIEF      JUSTICE     ROBERT    A.     VAN    WYCK,      OF 
THE    CITY    COURT. 

We  are  gathered  here  to  indulge  in  emotions  of  a 
conflicting  character. 

We  recite  with  a  fully  justified  pride  the  history  of  a 
Court  rich  in  learning,  presided  over  by  learned  jurists, 
and  pregnant  with  far-reaching  influences  in  the 
economy  of  this  great  metropolis. 

While  demonstrating  a  reason  for  its  perpetual  exist- 
ence, we  hear  the  mandate  of  our  new  Constitution 
proclaiming  that  the  hour  is  reached  when  we  must  bid 
farewell  forever  to  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  which, 
however,  will  live  in  memory  and  form  one  of  the 
brightest  pages  in  the  history  of  American  jurispru- 
dence. 

The  good-night  to  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas  is  but  the  good-morning  to  the  Justices  of 

219 


the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  disappearing  of  the  distin- 
guished Chief  Justice  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  is 
but  his  immediate  reappearance  as  Presiding  Justice 
of  one  of  the  appellate  branches  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

The  sorrows  of  death  and  the  joys  of  birth,  the  sweet 
and  the  bitter,  are  strangely  commingled  in  the 
thoughts  suggested  by  these  ceremonies. 

The  majesty  of  the  commonwealth  has  decreed  this 
change,  and  this  is  no  time  to  question  the  wisdom 
thereof,  for  there  is  a  sound  philosophy  in  the  proverb, 
*'  The  king  is  dead,  long  live  the  king,"  which  has  an 
application  to  the  situation. 

However  much  we  may  esteem  the  dead  ruler,  or  how- 
ever much  we  may  admire  the  old  methods  of  the  admin- 
istration of  any  department  of  government,  we  must 
lend  our  best  efforts  to  make  successful  the  new  ruler 
and  the  new  method  of  administration,  and  it  is  the 
bounden  duty  of  every  Judge  and  lawyer  to  sincerely 
labor  for  the  success  of  this  new  system  of  a  consoli- 
dated Court  for  the  administration  of  justice. 

We  justly  boast  of  the  long  line  of  distinguished  ju- 
rists who  have  adorned  the  bench  of  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas  and  we  point  with  pride  to  the  fact  that 
their  reported  decisions  have  so  frequently  been  cited 
by  the  Courts  of  the  civilized  world  as  binding 
authority  by  virtue  of  the  innate  strength  of  their 
reasoning  and  sense  of  justice,  as  to  mark  these  Judges 
as  richly  endowed  with  both  mind  and  conscience. 

They  manifested  a  sympathy  and  familiarity  with 
human  nature  and  the  necessities  of  life,  which  always 
opens  wide  the  broad  avenues  of  knowledge  and  wis- 
dom. 


They  seem  never  to  have  forgotten  that  law,  in  its 
nature,  is  the  noblest  and  most  beneficial  of  the  sciences, 
but  in  its  abuse  and  debasement  the  most  sordid  and 
pernicious. 

They  were  the  expounders  of  the  law  according  to 
its  reason  and  spirit,  seeking  to  climb  up  to  the  van- 
tage ground  of  the  science,  never  attaching  undue 
advantage  to  the  mere  technicalities,  never  extending 
hospitality  to  experts  in  the  art  of  perverting  and 
defeating  the  ends  of  justice. 

To  them  the  law  was  what  it  was  designed  to  be,  the 
science  of  justice,  which  defines  the  rights  of  person 
and  property,  interposing  its  powerful  arm  between  the 
strong  and  the  weak,  and  settling  rights  according  ta 
one  uniform  standard  of  even-handed  justice  to  all. 

They  were  the  proud  possessors  of  the  confidence  of 
the  lawyers  who  are  always  sensitively  jealous  as  to  the 
maintenance  of  the  purity  of  the  judicial  ermine. 

No  Court  was  ever  freer  from  scandal  and  suspicion 
than  this  one;  and  it  would  indeed  be  less  than  human 
if  the  realization  that  it  is  to  be  no  more,  did  not 
prompt  the  heart  to  sincere  expressions  of  sorrow  and 
regret. 

Judges  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  we  bid  you 
good-night.  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  we  salute 
you  good-morning. 

ADDRESS   OF  JUSTICE  JAMES  A.   o'gORMAN,   OF  THE 

eleventh  district  court. 

Mr.  Chief  Justice  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Bar: — 
This  ceremony  is  unique  because  it  is  without  a  paral- 
lel in   the   annals  of  American  law.      We  have  been 

221 


reminded  by  Mr.  Butler  of  the  dissolution  of  other  Courts 
in  the  past,  and  especially  of  the  Court  of  Chancery, 
and  of  the  Court  of  Errors.  But  I  venture  to  say  that 
never  before  in  any  city  upon  this  continent  has  a 
meeting  of  the  bar  been  convened  to  take  note  of  the 
passing  away  of  a  Court  of  Justice  that  could  boast  of 
an  existence  of  two  centuries  and  a  half.  The  event  is 
one  of  great  significance,  and  marks  an  epoch  in  the 
administration  of  law  in  this  State. 

We  have  gathered  here  to-day  not  only  to  manifest 
our  appreciation  of  the  great  ability  that  has  ever  dis- 
tinguished the  bench  of  this  Court,  but  to  express  our 
regret  that  a  Court  with  such  an  historic  past,  and  with 
such  grand  traditions,  should  be  swept  away  by  a  radi- 
cal, and  as  many  believe,  an  ill-advised  change  in  our 
organic  law. 

The  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  the  City  and  County 
of  New  York  is  perhaps  the  most  ancient  American 
tribunal.  It  is  twice  as  old  as  the  Nation  itself;  and, 
measured  by  its  antiquity,  by  the  high  character  and 
professional  attainments  of  its  Judges,  by  its  varied 
and  important  contributions  to  the  jurisprudence  of  the 
State  and  Nation,  by  its  long  life  of  public  usefulness, 
I  think  no  Court  in  this  State  has  a  higher  claim  upon 
the  confidence  and  commendation  of  the  bar,  and  the 
citizens  generally  of  this  city.  A  contemplation  of  the 
history  of  this  Court  as  reviewed  for  us  to-day  by  the 
venerable  Chief  Justice,  is  well  calculated  to  incite  in 
us  emotions  of  great  and  deep  respect,  and  of  admira- 
tion for  this  venerable  tribunal.  Dedicated  as  a  temple 
of  justice  at  a  time  when  the  population  of  this  island 
numbered  but  a  few   hundreds,  it  has   survived   the 


222 


vicissitudes  of  wars  and  conquests,  and  for  upwards  of 
two  hundred  and  forty-two  years  its  force  and  power 
have  been  directed  to  the  great  end  of  human  society — 
the  administration  of  justice.  We  should  be  proud  of 
this  Court.  No  stain  mars  the  beauty  of  its  magnifi- 
cent career.  I  know  the  bar  of  this  city  is  proud 
of  it.  We  are  proud  of  its  Judges,  past  and 
present.  They  have  been  in  truth  ministers  of  justice, 
always  animated  by  a  high  and  an  exalted  conception 
of  their  duties  and  responsibilities.  To-morrow  will 
witness  the  dissolution  of  this  Court.  But  its  record 
will  live  after  it,  and  I  am  sure  will  always  be  prized  by 
the  bar  of  the  city  and  county  of  New  York  as  one  of 
its  most  valuable  possessions. 

I  second  the  adoption  of  the  resolution. 

address  of  justice  george  f.  roesch,  of  the  fourth 
district  court. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Members  of  the  Judiciary  and  of 
THE  Bar  : — Through  the  courtesy  of  the  Committee  of 
Arrangements  the  Justices  of  the  District  Courts  in  our 
city  are  enabled  to  participate  in  this  commemorative 
gathering. 

These  Courts  will  soon  be  the  sole  survivors  of  the 
ancient  judicial  system  of  our  municipality.  They  can 
trace  their  lineage  as  District  Courts,  Assistant  Jus- 
tice's Courts  and  Justice's  Courts  as  far  back  as  1759. 
True  they  are  Courts  of  limited  and  purely  statutory 
jurisdiction,  yet  they  are  peculiarly  Courts  of  the  poor 
people.  Day  after  day  the  petty  disputes  of  civic  life 
seek  adjustment  in  them,  and  even  in  these  smaller 
forums  questions  of  surprising  magnitude  often  arise. 

223 


In  the  lower  portion  of  our  city  the  commercial  strife 
of  our  metropolis  is  heard  in  them  though  upon  a 
lesser  scale  than  that  which  engages  the  attention  of 
the  higher  Courts.  In  the  upper  portion  large 
property  interests  are  frequently  at  stake  in  the  sum- 
mary proceedings  which  are  brought  in  them.  On  the 
great  East  side  a  dense  cosmopolitan  population  crowds 
them  with  litigation  which  in  frequency  and  intensity 
is  in  inverse  proportion  to  the  pecuniary  amounts 
involved.  The  legal  questions  arising  in  these  Courts 
in  every  portion  of  our  city  are  fairly  representative  of 
the  varied  interests  of  the  masses  of  our  people.  They 
rival  in  the  importance  of  the  results  of  their  determi- 
nation in  the  circles  whose  activities  they  affect,  the 
larger  judicial  problems  solved  in  the  Courts  of 
Record. 

I  listened  gratefully  to  the  eloquent  language  of  the 
leader  of  the  junior  bar  (Mr.  Lauterbach)  when  he 
alluded  to  the  importance  of  these  minor  tribunals.  He 
did  not  overestimate  the  position  they  occupy  and 
the  rank  they  hold  in  our  judicial  life.  But  these 
Courts  have  not  alone  aided  the  people  in  the  dispo- 
sition of  a  great  amount  of  petty  litigation.  They 
have  been  of  service  as  well  to  the  bar  and  the  bench 
of  our  city.  It  has  frequently  been  remarked  that  the 
Courts  of  Justice's  of  the  Peace  in  our  State  have 
been  nurseries  of  great  men  of  our  profession. 

It  can  be  asserted  with  equal  confidence  that  the 
District  Courts  of  our  city  have  been  the  theatres  of 
the  early  struggles  and  triumphs  of  men  who  have 
become  famous  at  our  bar,  and  who  found  in  them 
excellent  schools  of  forensic  discipline.     Nor  must  we 

224 


forget  that  the  District  Courts  have  also  been  the 
cradles  of  great  Judges  who  were  transplanted  from  the 
lesser  functions  of  these  Courts  to  the  higher  sphere 
and  more  weighty  concerns  of  the  bench  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas.  I  refer  to  Hon.  Fred.  W.  Loew 
and  Hon.  George  C.  Barrett,  who  in  early  life  were 
occupants  of  the  District  Court  bench  and  thus 
acquired  valuable  familiarity  with  the  practical  affairs 
of  the  every-day  life  of  the  common  people. 

It  was  indeed  appropriate  to  invite  these  Courts  to 
take  part  in  these  exercises.  Since  1857  the  General 
Term  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  was  their  appellate 
tribunal.  It  may  be  interesting  to  call  attention  on 
this  occasion  to  the  fact  that  during  an  interregnum  of 
twenty-four  days  in  the  month  of  April  in  1857,  the 
appeals  from  the  Districts  Courts  were  directly  to  the 
General  Term  of  the  Superior  Court  of  this  city.  I 
refer  in  support  of  my  statement  to  the  note  in  Day  v. 
Swachhammer  (5  Abb.  Pr.  Rep.,  345).  Shortly  there- 
after the  old  system  was  restored  and  the  General 
Term  of  this  Court  has  ever  since  had  jurisdiction  of 
appeals  from  the  District  Courts.  Statistics  will  bear 
out  the  assertion  that  surprisingly  few  appeals  are 
taken  in  comparison  with  the  volume  of  business  dis- 
posed of  in  the  lower  Courts.  Last  year  about  200 
appeals  were  heard  though  upward  of  50,000  actions 
and  proceedings  were  tried  in  the  District  Courts  in 
that  period  of  time.  The  most  pleasant  and  cordial 
relations  have  subsisted  between  the  Judges  of  the 
General  Term  of  .this  Court  and  the  Justices  of  the 
District  Courts.  We  have  always  looked  to  you  as  our 
mentors  and  trusted  and  kindly  judicial  guides  in  the 

225 


labyrinth  of  precedents  and  m^ss  of  principles  in  the 
law. 

It  is  true  that  we  part  with  you  as  a  General  Term. 
Yet  we  lose  you  in  name  only  and  we  will  not  be 
deprived  of  the  benefit  of  your  example  and  influence. 
You  will  continue  to  blaze  out  for  us  among  conflicting 
views  those  principles  of  justice  which  should  be 
applied  by  us  to  the  concerns  of  the  people  of  our  own 
Courts.  We  glory  in  the  fact  and  congratulate  our- 
selves upon  the  circumstance  that  in  the  Appellate 
Term  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  which  the  appeals  from 
our  Courts  will  be  heard  in  the  future  there  will  be  a 
trio  of  Judges  intimately  acquainted  with  the  judicial 
life  of  these  lesser  tribunals  and  who  understand  the 
wants  and  needs  of  the  people  for  speedy,  cheap  and 
substantial  justice  in  these  Courts. 

I  allude  to  Justices  Daly,  McAdam  and  Bischoff.  No 
doubt  they  will  follow  as  their  polar  star  the  spirit  of 
the  decision  in  Meyers  v.  Rosenbach  (9  Mis.  Rep.,  89), 
in  which  Justice  Pry  or  declares  that  **  It  is  the  distri- 
bution of  substantial  justice  irrespective  of  formal 
rules  of  procedure  that  is  the  function  of  the  District 
Courts  in  disposing  of  the  litigation  before  them. 
Were  they  to  be  fettered  by  all  the  technical  and 
recondite  rules  of  practice  with  which  Judges  and 
counselors  in  Courts  of  Record  are  presumed  to  be 
conversant,  they  would  surely  miscarry  in  the  attain- 
ment of  that  cheap  and  speedy  justice  which  is  the  end 
of  their  institution." 

We  part  with  you,  then,  in  name  only.  Your  influ- 
ence, your  teachings  and  the  benefit  of  your  example 
remain  with  us.     We  will  continue  to  entertain  that 

226 


veneration  and  esteem  for  you  which  have  been  the 
delight  not  only  of  the  older  but  the  younger  members 
of  the  bar  as  well. 

I  know  I  voice  the  unanimous  and  heartfelt  senti- 
ment of  my  colleagues  on  the  District  Court  bench 
when  I  express  in  their  behalf  the  sincere  hope  that 
the  lustre  of  your  careers  in  your  new  and  wider  sphere 
of  judicial  activity  may  exceed,  if  possible,  the  renown 
of  your  noble  past. 

The  resolutions  offered  by  Mr.  McClure  and 
seconded  were  then  put  to  vote  by  the  chairman  and 
adopted  unanimously.  The  chairman  then  addressed 
the  meeting. 

ADDRESS    OF    CHIEF  JUDGE    JOSEPH    F.   DALY. 

The  Court  of  Common  Pleas  closes  to-day  a  history 
co-extensive  with  that  of  the  City  of  New  York  with 
which  it  has  been  so  long  identified.  Its  annals  down 
to  the  year  1855,  as  prepared  by  its  former  Chief 
Judge,  to  whom  we  have  had  the  great  pleasure  of 
listening  to-day,  form  one  of  the  most  interesting 
chapters  in  local  history.  From  1855  to  1870  there  was 
nothing  to  be  added  but  the  succession  of  its  Judges ; 
in  the  latter  year  it  received  a  grant  of  constitutional 
powers  which  placed  it  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  in  the 
first  rank  of  State  Courts. 

My  acquamtance  with  the  Court  began  in  the  sixties, 
when  a  member  of  the  bar.  Its  high  reputation  for 
the  careful  consideration  of  its  cases  and  the  learning 
and  character  of  its  Judges  attracted  a  good  share  of 
the  equity  business  of  the  profession  although  it  had 
but  three  Judges  and  its  law  calendar  was  full.     I  com- 

227 


menced  in  it  an  action  for  a;i  injunction  to  protect 
rights  in  real  property  and  in  that  litigation  I  met  for 
the  first  time  the  present  Presiding  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  this  district.  Our  case  was  heard 
and  determined  by  the  then  First  Judge  of  the  Court, 
Charles  P.  Daly.  In  1870  we  joined  him  upon  the 
bench.  A  special  Spring  election  of  Judges  was  held 
in  that  year  under  the  amended  Constitution  of  1869 
reorganizing  the  Court  of  Appeals,  the  Supreme  Court 
and  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  Of  the  Judges  then 
elected  but  three  now  survive,  the  Chief  Judge  of  the 
Court  of  Appeals,  the  Presiding  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  this  district  and  the  Chief  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas. 

The  reputation  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  at  the 
time  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1869  was  such 
that  with  but  three  Judges  and  a  calendar  to  which 
only  about  350  cases  were  annually  added,  the  Conven- 
tion determined  to  extend  its  usefulness  by  doubling 
the  number  of  its  Judges.  The  new  Judges  were 
elected  in  1870  and  the  next  year  the  new  issues  added 
to  its  calendar  were  968.  Last  year  the  new  issues 
were  over  1,300 — the  highest  number  in  its  history. 

The  increase  was  the  more  significant  because  the 
Court  has  had  only  five  Judges  to  perform  its  work. 
Under  the  Constitution  of  1870  the  Governor  wa,s 
authorized  to  assign  one  or  more  of  its  Judges  to  assist 
in  the  work  of  the  Supreme  Court ;  and  one  of  them 
has  been  so  assigned  continuously  for  twenty-five 
years.  So  that  Avhile  its  force  was  not  quite  double 
what  it  was  in  1869  its  business  has  trebled.  But  the 
provision  for  detailing  its  Judges  to  the  Supreme  Court 

228 


tended,  as  was  lately  remarked  by  Mr.  Carter,  to  the 
ultimate  consolidation  of  the  Courts,  No  matter  how 
great  the  influx  of  cases  to  the  Common  Pleas  the 
natural  growth  of  business  in  the  Supreme  Court  would 
tend  to  further  drafts  upon  the  judicial  force  of  the 
former.  In  fact,  in  1869  the  Governor  of  the  State 
communicated  to  us  the  request  of  the  Supreme  Court 
for  the  services  of  an  additional  Judge,  a  request  which 
it  was  impossible  to  grant  without  injustice  to  our  own 
suitors. 

The  consolidation  of  the  local  Courts  of  superior 
jurisdiction  with  the  Supreme  Court,  which  had  been 
long  discussed  and  which  is  now  effected  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  1894,  grew  out  of  no  dissatisfaction  with  the 
work  of  these  Courts.  Had  there  been  merely  question 
of  one  good  Court,  or  two  of  superior  jurisdiction  in 
the  great  cities,  the  reasons  against  consolidation  might 
have  prevailed ;  for,  tested  by  the  result  of  the  scrutiny 
which  the  decisions  of  the  several  Courts  undergo 
in  the  Court  of  Appeals,  no  Court  of  original  juris- 
diction fell  far  behind  another  in  the  quality  of  its 
work. 

An  examination  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  Reports  for 
five  years,  from  March,  1889,  to  April,  1894,  gives  the 
percentage  of  afflrmances  of  the  Supreme  Court  at 
seventy- five  and  of  the  Common  Pleas  at  seventy-six, 
while  those  of  the  City  Court  of  Brooklyn  were  still 
greater.  An  examination  of  the  appeals  in  the  years 
1 89 1  and  1892,  made  in  the  latter  year  and  published 
at  the  time,  showed  that  the  reversals  of  the  decisions 
of  the  Supreme  Court  and  Common  Pleas  was  only  5 
per  cent,  in  the  former  and  6   per   cent,   in   the  latter 

229 


of  the  whole  number  of  decisions  rendered  by  their 
general  terms  and  appealable  to  the  Court  of  Appeals. 
If  the  observation  of  Dean  Austin  Abbott  be  correct 
that  ''an  Appellate  Court  exists  solely  for  the  purpose 
of  reversing,"  then  the  local  Courts  have  added  little 
to  the  labor  of  the  Court  of  last  resort. 

Consolidation  came,  not  from  the  necessity  of  improv- 
ing the  Courts  of  original  jurisdiction — for,  as 
ex-Judge  Noah  Davis  recently  said  "  the  work  of  the 
Courts  is  now  performed  with  an  industry  unparalleled 
in  the  history  of  the  judiciary,"  but  from  the  necessity 
of  relieving  the  burdens  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  and  to 
preserve  that  tribunal  from  unwieldy  enlargement,  or 
divisions  into  parts.  To  this  end  the  system  of  inter- 
mediate appellate  tribunals  with  final  powers  in  certain 
cases,  was  devised ;  and  that  system  required  that  the 
jurisdiction  of  all  the  existing  general  terms  should  be 
vested  in  those  tribunals.  It  was  perceived  at  once 
that  all  the  advantages  of  separate  independent  local 
Courts  would  disappear  with  the  consolidation  of  their 
general  terms  and  the  loss  of  control  of  their  own 
judgments.  One  general  term  meant  one  Court  not- 
withstanding that  the  forms  of  different  organizations 
might  be  preserved.  As  the  establishment  of  inter- 
mediate appellate  tribunals  necessitated  the  consolida- 
tion of  the  Courts,  the  change  of  system  therefore 
began  from  the  top ;  and  the  form  of  the  trial  Courts 
was  changed  in  order  to  preserve  the  form  of  the  Court 
of  last  resort. 

The  change  was  made  by  the  framers  of  the  new 
Constitution  in  a  way  to  testify  their  respect  for  the 
local  Courts  and  to  remove  all  distinction  between  their 


230 


Judges  and  those  of  the  Supreme  Court,  who  were  all 
to  be  assigned  to  the  work  of  that  Court  without  dis- 
crimination. The  reason  was  not,  as  far  as  this  Court 
was  concerned,  difficult  to  find.  It  was  conspicuous  in 
the  record  of  its  business.  Its  five  Judges  have  held 
general  terms,  equity  terms,  trial  terms  and  special 
terms  in  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  co-extensive  with 
that  of  the  Supreme  Court  within  the  limits  of  this 
county.  The  general  terms  reviewed  the  appellate 
decisions  of  six  Justices  of  the  City  Court,  the  judg- 
ments of  eleven  District  Court  Judges,  and  the  judg- 
ments and  orders  of  its  own  five  Judges.  The  number 
of  cases  actually  decided  in  the  general  term  in  187 1, 
when  the  additional  Judges  took  their  places  was  284; 
it  had  increased  in  1895  to  503;  384  written  opinions 
were  filed  by  the  general  term  this  year.  In  addition, 
the  Judges  tried  632  cases  on  the  law,  equity  and  special 
term  calendars,  heard  3,536  motions  and  made  14,040 
ex  parte  orders. 

It  is  significant  that  although  the  Judges  with  all  pos- 
sible application  were  able  to  dispose  of  but  391  causes 
on  the  jury  calendar  in  1894,  new  issues  to  the  number 
of  1,305  were  added  to  the  calendar  in  that  year;  the 
Court  having  attracted  business  three  times  as  great  as 
its  capacity  to  dispose  of.  In  that  year  the  insolvent 
assignment  business  of  the  Court  aggregated  177 
assignments  with  schedules  showing  over  $3,000,000  of 
actual  assets;  and  required  at  special  term  118  final 
accountings  and  decrees  and  the  making  of  937  orders. 
The  aggregate  amounts  involved  in  the  business  of  the 
Court  for  certain  periods  needs  no  comment.  The 
judgments  in  the  Court  for  twenty  years,  to  1894,  num- 

231 


bered  over  20,000.  The  amojint  of  the  money  judg- 
ments was  $28,406,688;  the  amounts  involved  in  mort- 
gage foreclosures,  $30,209,498;  the  insolvent  estates 
actually  distributed,  $49,499,334. 

This  is  the  briefest  possible  glance  at  the  work  of 
the  Court,  work  which  the  bar  has  been  pleased  to 
commend  in  to-day's  proceedings.  In  performing  day 
by  day,  with  simple  devotion,  the  duty  nearest  to  them, 
the  Judges  have  expected  no  reward  like  this;  and  they 
could  desire  no  greater,  It  leaves  us  embarrassed  for 
fitting  words  to  reply.  But  I  should  not  do  justice  to 
what  I  know  to  be  the  feelings  of  the  whole  bench  of 
the  Common  Pleas,  if  I  permitted  this  memorable 
occasion  to  pass  without  acknowledging  the  uniform 
courtesy  which  the  Judges  have  received  from  the  bar; 
and  something  more ;  for  the  bar  of  this  city — noted  as 
it  has  always  been  for  the  respect  it  pays  to  its  judi- 
ciary— has  unmistakably  evinced  towards  this  Court  a 
warmer  feeling. 

Judges  who  respect  the  bar  cannot  fail  to  win  its 
respect.  When  the  bench  appreciates  the  labors^ 
anxieties,  difficulties  and  responsibilities  of  the  practi- 
tioner; sees  in  him,  his  cause  and  his  clients;  apprehends 
the  consequences  of  litigation  to  the  litigant  and 
approaches  the  consideration  of  a  case  with  a  sense  of 
its  immense  importance  to  the  parties,  there  is  no  fear 
that  the  bar  will  fail  to  appreciate  such  conscientious 
feeling  in  the  discharge  of  official  duty. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  bench  of  the  Common  Pleas 
has  always  kept  in  touch  with  the  profession ;  that  we 
have  in  a  special  manner  shown  the  utmost  considera- 
tion for  its  younger  members.       We  have  found  them 

232 


'C^r|'/;4v%^ 


ANDREW    WARNER. 


BENJAMIN    H.    JARVIS. 


SAMUEL   JONKS. 


ALFRKD    WAGSTAFF. 


TIIR  CLERKS  OF  THE  COURT  OF  COMMON  PLEAS 


deserving  of  it.  We  regard  the  future  as  full  of  promise 
for  the  profession  in  the  ability  and  earnestness  of  its 
rising  members.  I  alluded  to  the  warmer  feeling 
which  the  bar  has  entertained  for  this  Court.  On  many 
occasions  and  by  the  voice  of  many  of  its  members  the 
profession  has  testified  not  merely  respect,  but  affec- 
tion, for  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  This  we  take 
with  us  as  a  priceless  remembrance  upon  bidding  fare- 
well to  the  venerable  institution  which  is  now  passing 
away  and  entering  upon  a  new  field  of  duty.  We  hope 
to  carry  with  us  your  unchanged  regard.  Nothing 
will  be  altered  but  a  form.  As  the  ancient  Court  in 
the  two  centuries  and  a  half  of  its  existence  saw  gen- 
erations of  men  as  well  as  successions  of  Judges  pass 
away,  saw  even  governments  and  dynasties  change,  and 
survived  them  all,  it  seemed  to  be  the  substance  and 
men  but  shadows.  It  now  passes  away  with  the 
shadows,  but  the  substance  remains.  It  will  be  strange 
indeed  if  all  that  made  it  respected  and  loved  cannot  be 
perpetuated  in  another  form  and  in  another  tribunal. 
You  can  make  your  Courts  and  your  Judges  what  you 
please.  A  courageous  bar  makes  an  incorruptible 
judiciary. 

It  now  remains  only  to  thank  you,  gentlemen,  on  be- 
half of  the  Judges  of  the  Court  for  the  honor  you  have 
done  them  in  this  commemorative  meeting  and  in 
selecting  the  Chief  Judge  of  this  Court  to  preside  over 
it.  On  behalf  of  the  Judges  of  this  Court  I  wish  to 
thank  the  clerk,  the  assistant  clerks,  the  stenographers 
and  the  attendants,  for  their  assistance  so  long  and 
faithfully  rendered.  Our  last  collective  function  is  now 
to  be  performed.     The  Court  which  has  existed  for  250 

233 


years  is  to  hold  its  last  session.^  Under  the  name  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  it  has  existed  seventy-four 
years  and  in  that  time  has  had  twenty-three  Judges. 
Its  first  Judge,  John  T.  Irving,  sat  in  it  seventeen 
years ;  its  second,  Michael  Ulshoeff er,  sixteen  years ;  its 
third,  D.  P.  Ingraham,  twenty  years;  its  fourth,  Wm. 
Inglis,  five  years,  and  its  fifth,  Charles  P.  Daly,  forty- 
one  years,  and  he  is  with  us  to-day  hale  and  vigorous. 
Seven  other  Judges  have  sat  in  it  for  terms  of  eleven 
to  twenty-five  years.  It  has  given  five  Judges  to  the 
Supreme  Court  besides  those  now  transferred;  two  to 
the  Superior  Court  and  one  to  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States.  It  has  been  closely  connected  with  all 
the  local  Courts  and  Judges  and  in  performance  of  the 
multifarious  duties  imposed  upon  it  has  furnished  in  its 
reports  authorities  in  almost  all  known  proceedings; 
and  it  closes  its  labors  surrounded  with  that  which 
the  poet  says  should  accompany  old  age — 

"As  honor,  love,  obedience,  troops  of  friends." 

The  prolonged  applause  following  these  remarks 
having  subsided. 

The  Chief  Judge  directed  that  the  Court  be  convened 
for  the  last  time. 

The  crier,  Mr.  Thomas  Sweeny,  then  formally 
■opened  the  Court. 

Ex-Judge  George  M.  Van  Hoesen  moved  that  the 
proceedings  of  this  meeting  be  placed  upon  the  records 
of  the  Court,  and  it  was  so  ordered. 

The  Chief  Justice  then  inquired  if  there  was  any 
further  business  before  the  Court. 


234 


Whereupon  the  Clerk  of  the  Court,  Mr.  Alfred 
Wagstaff ,  arose  and  said : 

All  the  business  submitted  to  the  Court  has  been 
disposed  of.  The  actions  and  proceedings  pending 
will  be  transferred  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  this 
department  of  which  the  Judges  of  this  Court  are  to  be 
members.  The  seals,  records,  papers  and  documents 
belonging  to  the  Court  are  ready  to  be  deposited  in  the 
office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  County  pursuant  to  the  Con- 
stitution. 

PRESENTATION    OF    A    GAVEL    TO    CHIEF    JUDGE    JOSEPH 
F.    DALY. 

Mr.  William  S.  Keiley,  the  Assignment  Clerk,  rose 
and  addressed  the  Chief  Judge.     Mr.  Keiley  said : 

To  me,  sir,  has  been  assigned  the  pleasant  duty, 
tinged  though  it  be  with  a  keen  sense  of  sorrow  at  the 
severing  of  ties  of  friendship  that  have  existed  for 
about  a  quarter  of  a  century, — of  presenting  to  your 
Honor  this  emblem  of  your  judicial  power,  which  you 
have  wielded  so  long  and  so  faithfully,  and  with  so 
much  of  honor  and  credit  to  yourself  and  this  Court, 
and  while  we  must  accept  it  as  an  accomplished  fact 
that  the  law  of  gavelkind  cannot  obtain  in  your 
Honor's  case  by  reason  of  the  constitutional  demise  of 
this  Court, — still  let  us  hope  that  the  existence  of  this 
gavel  may  incite  those  who  come  after  you  to  a 
laudable  spirit  of  emulation — for,  sir,  in  those  dismal 
days  when  the  judicial  ermine  in  this  country  was  be- 
fouled and  an  indignant  people  in  their  righteous  wrath 
demanded  reform,  no  breath  of  suspicion  pervaded 
the  atmosphere  of  this  Court  and  the  humblest  litigant 

235 


here  found  a  haven  where  the  waters  were  pure,  and 
the  scales  of  justice  were  held  with  an  even  hand. 

Accept  it  then,  sir,  in  the  same  spirit  which  prompts 
its  gift,  as  a  modest  token  of  that  esteem  and  affection 
in  which  you  shall  ever  hold  a  place  in  our  memories — 
and  be  assured  that  though  some  of  us  less  fortunate 
perhaps,  than  others,  must  seek  our  livelihood  in  other 
fields,  yet  to  one  and  all  it  shall  be  the  sweetest 
heritage  to  ever  keep  in  fond  memory  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  and  its  last  Chief  Judge. 

The  Chief  Judge  replied  as  follows : 

I  am  deeply  touched  by  this  remembrance,  which  I 
understand  to  be  the  gift  of  the  senior  and  the  assistant 
clerks  of  this  Court,  some  of  whom  were  already  old  in 
the  service  of  the  Common  Pleas  when,  at  an  age  so 
early  as  now  to  cause  me  as  much  wonderment  as  pride, 
I  ascended  its  bench.  If  after  so  many  years  the 
veterans  entertain  so  cordial  a  feeling  for  the  youngest 
Judge  under  whom  they  ever  served  it  is  because  he  has 
ever  held  them  in  the  same  respect  as  when,  as  a 
young  practitioner,  he  first  knew  them  and  recognized 
their  functions  as  an  essential  part  of  the  tribunal  of 
justice;  and  because  he  never  lost  and  never  had 
occasion  to  lose  his  respect  for  the  scrupulous  care 
with  which  they  performed  their  responsible  duties. 

It  occurs  to  me,  as  I  touch  this  gavel,  that  the  bar 
will,  perhaps,  bear  me  out  in  saying  that  I  have 
handled  it  more  on  this  occasion  than  in  the  whole 
twenty-five  years  of  my  service  on  the  bench.  It  was 
intended,  I  believe,  to  help  me  to  enforce  order.  I 
never  needed  it.  The  decorum  observed  by  the  bar  of 
New  York  is  their  distinguishing  characteristic.     But  I 

236 


shall  prize  it  for  what  it  suggests.  For,  if  the  white- 
ness of  the  ivory  is  figurative  of  the  ideal  judicial 
character,  let  me  say  that  the  sterling  gold  of  its 
adornment  is  no  less  expressive  of  the  character  of  our 
bar. 

Under  the  directions  of  the  Chief  Judge,  the  crier 
then  adjourned  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  without 
day. 

INSCRIPTIONS    UPON    THE    GAVEL. 

On  the  gold  band  around  the  barrel  was  inscribed : 

1653 1895. 

1821  John  T.  Irving  1838 

1838  Michael  Ulshoeffer  1850 

1850  Daniel  P.  Ingraham  1858 

1858  Charles  P.  Daly  1886 

1886  Richard  L.  Larremore  1890 

1890  Joseph  F,  Daly  1895 

On  one  end  of  the  barrel : 

1870  to  1890  J. 
Joseph  F.  Daly 
1890  to  1895  C.  J. 

On  the  other  end  of  the  barrel :  An  impression  of  the 
Court  seal. 

On  the  gold  band  around  the  handle : 

This  gavel  was  used 

by  the  last  Chief  Judge 

of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas 

for  the  City  and  County  of 

New  York. 

h^c  olim  meminisse  juvabit. 
237 


APPENDIX. 

Some  of  the  Press  Notices  on  the  Retirement  of  Chief 
Justice    Charles  P.  Daly. 

Extract  from  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  Dec.  2gth,  i88s. 

"Judge  Daly  was  appointed  to  fill  a  vacancy  by  Governor 
Bouck,  under  the  old  system,  in  1844,  and  has  been  regularly - 
reelected  to  succeed  himself  by  the  popular  vote  ever  since.  The 
only  time  when  he  ran  any  risk  of  being  dropped  was  in  1871, 
when  his  term  expired,  and  the  Tweed  Ring  was  well  known  to 
need  his  place  for  a  more  pliant  man.  But  its  power  had  been 
broken  before  the  election  came  off,  and  he  then  was  treated  to 
the  great  honor  of  a  unanimous  vote  from  all  parties  and  factions 
for  the  term  of  fourteen  years  which  is  now  expiring.  ***** 

' '  What  the  general  public  is  now  called  upon  gratefully  to  remem- 
ber is  that  Judge  Daly  has  in  his  time  sat  in  many  great  causes, 
and  passed  on  many  great  questions,  often  in  troublous  times,  and 
in  times,  too,  when  judicial  integrity  was  much  and  reasonably 
doubted,  without  ever  having  the  shadow  of  a  suspicion  cast  on 
him  by  either  victor  or  vanquished.  It  is  this,  after  all,  rather 
than  his  legal  learning,  great  as  that  may  have  been,  which  the 
mass  of  his  fellow-citizens  have  most  prominently  in  mind  to-day 
in  wishing  him  many  happy  years  of  well-won  repose. 

"  It  must  also  be  said  of  him  that  at  a  period  when  the  New 
York  bar  is  singularly  absorbed  in  professional  pursuits,  when  the 
cultivation  of  other  than  professional  knowledge  is  singularly 
neglected  by  it,  he  has  always  found  time  for  a  reasonable  devo- 
tion to  literature  and  science.  His  services  in  geography  and  in 
the  promotion  and  elucidation  of  geographical  research  are  known 
to  scientific  men  all  over  the  world.  He  has  been  an  industrious 
investigator  in  many  out-of-the-way  historical  fields,  and  in  fact 
so  much  so  as  sometimes  to  convert  his  judicial  decisions  into 

239 


genuine  treatises,  when  the  subject  ^^^  o^e  which  admitted  or 
called  for  this  sort  of  discussion.  Few  Judges  have,  indeed,  ever 
more  fully  illustrated  the  saying  that  'the  sparks  of  all  other 
sciences  are  found  in  the  ashes  of  the  law.' 

' '  In  truth,  during  the  last  forty  years  there  have  been  few 
literary  or  scientific  movements  in  this  city  in  which  he  has  not 
taken  a  more  or  less  prominent  part,  and  few  social  gatherings 
of  the  intellectual  kind  at  which  he  has  not  been  a  welcome  and 
valued  guest.  He  has  in  this  way,  too,  reflected  a  sort  of  credit 
on  the  judicial  bench.  '  New  York  society,'  as  it  is  called,  has 
not  of  late  been  as  much  indebted  to  the  learned  professions  as  it 
used  to  be  in  the  days  when  Judge  Daly  was  in  his  prime  for  the 
things  which  give  refinement  to  wealth  and  luxury.  Take  him 
for  all  in  all,  we  shall  not  soon  see  any  one  on  the  bench  with  such 
varied  claims  on  general  esteem  and  respect.  It  will  probably  be 
a  long  time  before  another  Judge  will  appear  who  for  forty-two 
years  will  fill  the  position  with  as  little  reproach,  and  win  for  it  as 
much  honor,  and  carry  with  him  into  his  retirement  so  many 
friendly  reminders  that  he  has  played  well  a  great  part." 

Extract  from  the   Daily  Register,  Dec.  30th,  i88j. 

"The  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  in  which  he  has  so  long  pre- 
sided, has,  in  reality,  during  the  last  half  century,  given  the  law 
to  a  very  large  portion  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  city  on  the  sub- 
jects most  closely  connected  with  domestic  and  business  welfare. 
Inheriting  in  some  sense  the  limited  functions  and  modest 
position  of  the  Mayor's  Court — an  humble  position  in  jurispru- 
dence, when  considered  in  relation  to  the  general  jurisdictions  of 
the  country — the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  under  the  administra- 
tion of  Chief  Justice  Daly  and  his  associates,  has  carried  forward 
the  advances  it  has  already  made,  and  has  steadily  risen,  win- 
ning, by  growing  public  confidence,  constant  accessions  of 
jurisdiction,  until  it  now  stands  in  coordinate  rank  with  the 
Supreme  Court,  from  which  it  dififers  simply  by  a  few  small 
territorial  restrictions  of  jurisdiction. 

' '  Those  lawyers  who  have  had  a  varied  experience  here  will 
probably  consider  it  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  controverted 
questions  of  law  affecting  more  than  half  the  population  of  the 

240 


city  in  respect  to  their  homes,  their  contracts,  their  vocations, 
their  tenancies  and  their  business  and  social  duties,  have  been 
sifted  and  settled  in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas ;  and  if  of  late  in 
its  appellate  jurisdiction  over  the  City  Court  it  has  had  far  more 
aid  than  in  years  gone  by,  undoubtedly  it  has  formerly  had  at 
times  no  easy  task  in  administering  its  appellate  jurisdiction  over 
the  District  Courts  and  the  late  Marine  Court.  The  success  with 
which  it  has  held  within  practicable  limits  the  constructions  of 
law  which  those  somewhat  wayward  tribunals  were  occasionally 
inclined  to  lay  down,  is  no  small  element  in  the  obligation  which 
the  city  owes  to  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  and 
their  experienced  chief. 

"If  it  has  not  fallen  to  the  lot  of  the  Judge  whose  services  we 
recognize,  and  whose  return  to  the  ranks  of  the  profession  we 
greet,  to  deal  frequently  with  broad  and  far-reaching  questions  of 
constitutional  law,  public  polity  and  criminal  jurisprudence,  it  is 
because  the  public  needs  required  him  in  the  constant  administra- 
tions of  questions  which  come  home  still  more  closely  to  men's 
business  and  bosoms,  and  which  though  affecting  fewer  people 
than  some  of  the  litigations  of  the  day,  affect  the  parties  and  the 
local  cummunity  far  more  closely  and  vitally. 

"The  good  sense  and  thorough  research,  the  practical  adaptation 
of  learning  to  present  necessities,  the  firmness  and  humanity 
with  which  his  administration  has  been  characterized  deserves 
the  recognition  which  the  bar  intends  to  give,  and  these  qualities 
will  continue  to  receive  a  growing  appreciation  as  his  opinions 
continue  to  be  quoted  and  followed. 

"No  other  Judge  will  probably  deem  it  derogatory  or  beyond 
the  limits  of  just  recognition  to  say  that  to  strike  Judge  Daly's 
decisions  out  from  the  body  of  our  present  authorities  on  the  law 
of  real  property,  landlord  and  tenant,  carriers,  master  and 
servant,  and  contracts  of  employment,  bailment,  and  hotel 
keeper's  law,  sales  and  negligence — not  to  mention  other  topics 
of  scarcely  less  importance — would  create  as  large  an  hiatus  in 
our  jurisprudence  as  the  loss  of  those  of  any  other  Judge  living  or 
dead." 


241 


Extract  from  the  New  York  Tzm^s,  November  ijth,  i88j, 

"  It  is  not  only  on  the  bench  that  Judge  Daly  has  used  his  legal 
knowledge  in  the  service  of  the  public.  When  the  War  of  the 
Rebellion  broke  out  he  was  a  Democrat,  but  a  true  Union  Demo- 
crat, always  speaking  in  defense  of  the  integrity  of  the  Union  and 
insisting  that  the  rebellion  must  be  put  down  at  all  hazards.  He 
was  in  frequent  consultation  with  President  Lincoln  and  members 
of  the  Cabinet,  who  often  sought  his  legal  advice  and  generally 
acted  upon  it.  When  the  crew  of  the  rebel  privateer  '  Jefferson 
Davis  '  were  convicted  and  sentenced  to  be  hanged  as  pirates  in 
1861,  Judge  Daly  met  the  President  and  his  Cabinet  and  urged 
that  they  be  pardoned  and  exchanged  as  prisoners  of  war.  He 
reasoned  that  as  a  question  of  law  there  was  no  difference  be- 
tween the  Southern  soldier  fighting  the  Union  soldiers  on  land 
and  the  Southern  privateer  capturing  our  ships  afloat.  His  argu- 
ments were  so  impressive  that  the  President  asked  him  to  put 
them  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  which  he  did,  publishing  it  in  the 
Times,  Herald,  Su7i  and  Tribune.  Three  days  after  the  Presi- 
dent adopted  his  views  and  the  prisoners  were  exchanged. 

"A  few  evenings  after  the  seizure  of  Mason  and  Slidell  Judge 
Daly  was  dining  with  Chief-Justice  Chase,  when  the  question  of 
the  right  to  take  them  from  a  British  vessel  was  discussed.  The 
Judge  was  the  only  Democrat  present,  except  Montgomery  Blair. 
The  feeling  was  universal  at  that  time  that  the  two  rebel  ambas- 
sadors ought  not  to  be  given  up.  Judge  Daly's  opinion  was 
asked  by  the  Chief  Justice,  and  he  promptly  answered:  '  I  think 
we  shall  have  to  surrender  them.  Their  seizure  would  be  per- 
fectly justifiable  by  the  English  law,  but  not  by  our  own ;  I  think 
that  our  cases  are  against  us.  *  The  Judge  promised  to  hunt  up 
the  authorities,  and  he  did  so  the  next  morning,  finding  a  de- 
cision of  Chief  Justice  Marshall  that  was  flatly  against  holding  the 
prisoners.  He  referred  Secretary  Seward  to  this,  and  that  even- 
ing he  saw  William  M.  Evarts  and  told  him  his  views.  Mr. 
Evarts  did  not  agree  with  him,  but  Mr  Seward  evidently  did,  for 
four  days  after  he  published  a  letter  consenting  to  the  return  of 
Mason  and  Slidell  to  the  protection  of  the  British  flag.  What 
might  have  happened  had  this  decision  of  Judge  Daly's,  made  in 
the  face  of  strong  opposition,  not  been  accepted  it  is  not  pleasant 

242 


to  reflect,  now  that  the  passions  engendered  by  the  war  have 
passed  away.  At  that  time  Sidney  Bartlett,  the  eminent  Boston 
lawyer,  was  the  only  person  in  Washington  who  agreed  with 
Judge  Daly  on  this  important  question  of  international  law. 

"  The  decisions  rendered  by  Judge  Daly  during  his  long  service 
in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  have  been  of  a  nature  to  reflect 
credit  upon  the  court  and  himself.  They  have  not  only  been 
written  in  the  purest  of  English,  so  that  they  stand  as  worthy 
examples  of  American  legal  literature,  but  they  show  a  vast 
amount  of  study  and  research,  and  information  on  special  sub- 
jects, which  testify  to  the  care  and  labor  which  has  been  be- 
stowed upon  them.  The  Judge  has  found  time  in  the  midst  of 
his  arduous  duties  on  the  Bench  to  attend  to  many  other  things. 
In  i860  Columbia  College  conferred  upon  him  the  degree  of  LL. 
D.  In  1S67  he  was  elected  a  member  of  the  State  Constitutional 
Convention,  and  did  valuable  work  on  the  Judiciary  Committee, 
and  on  the  Committee  on  the  Submission  of  the  Constitution.  He 
has  been  the  President  of  the  Geographical  Society  for  twenty- 
two  years,  and  is  an  honorary  member  of  the  Royal  Geographical 
Society  of  London,  the  Berlin  Geographical  Society,  and  the  Im- 
perial Geographical  Society  of  Russia.  He  is  almost  as  well 
known  and  as  highly  esteemed  in  Europe  as  in  his  native  land. 
Alexander  von  Humboldt,  to  whom  in  185 1  he  brought  a  letter  of 
introduction  from  Chevalier  Bunsen,  then  and  for  many  years  the 
Prussian  Minister  to  England,  said  of  him :  '  Few  men  have  left 
upon  me  such  an  impression.'" 

The  letters  of  Humboldt,  to  which  reference  is  made  both  in  the 
address  of  Mr.  William  Allen  Butler  and  in  the  article  from  the 
New  York  Times,  from  which  an  extract  has  just  been  given,  are 
from  "  Brief e  Von  Alexander  von  Humboldt  and  Christian  Carl 
Josias.     Freiherr  \5on  Bunsen,  Leipzig  (F.  A.  Brockhaus),  1869." 

Extract  from  Letter  of  July  i8th,  j8ji. 
"  I  cannot  close  these  hurried  lines  without  thanking  you,  from 
the  bottom  of  my  heart,  for  the  acquaintance  I  made  with  Judge 
Charley  Daly,  from  New  York,  who,  upon  his  return  from  Italy, 
about  a  week  ago,  passed  through  here  (Potsdam)  and  gave  me 
almost  a  whole  day  of  his  time.     All  that  you  communicated  to 

243 


me  about  him,  I  have  found  confirmefl  in  a  much  higher  degree. 
Few  men  leave  behind  them  such  an  impression  of  high  intellect 
upon  the  great  subjects  that  influence  the  march  of  civilization; 
in  estimating  the  apparently  opposite  direction  of  character  of 
those  nations  which  surround  the  ever-narrowing  basin  of  the 
Atlantic.  Moreover,  what  is  uncommon  in  a  North  American, 
and  still  more  uncommon  in  the  practical  life  of  a  greatly  occu- 
pied magistrate,  is  that  this  highly  intelligent  and  upright  man 
has  a  deep  and  lively  interest  in  the  fine  arts,  and  even  in  poetry. 
In  my  conversation  with  him  about  slavery,  Mormonism  and 
Canadian  feudalism,  I  have  directed  his  attention  upon  those 
questions  which  are  especially  interesting  to  me,  particularly 
whether  there  is  anything  to  be  looked  for  with  respect  to  the 
literature  of  a  people,  the  noblest  productions  of  whose  literatiire 
have  had  their  roots  in  another  country." 

Extract  from  Letter  dated  Potsdam,  September  28th,  iS^i- 

"Among  the  best  men  whose  acquaintance  I  owe  to  you,  I 
esteem  Judge  Daly,  of  the  great  State  of  New  York,  with  whom  I 
have  had  the  opportunity  of  enjoying  such  important  conversa- 
tions." 


THE  HONORABLE  WILLIAM  INGLIS. 

Since  the  writing  and  publication  of  the  sketch  of  Judge  Inglis, 
the  following  facts  concerning  his  life  have  been  definitely  ascer- 
tained: 

He  was  born  December  27,  1804,  and  died  May  29,  1863,  in  the 
59th  year  of  his  age,  and  was  buried  in  Trinity  Cemetery,  at  155th 
Street,  in  the  City  of  New  York. 

He  was  the  son  of  John  Inglis,  who  was  born  in  Scotland, 
March  26,  1763,  and  died  December  6,  1848,  aged  85  years.  The 
family  resided  many  years  at  Hoboken  or  Jersey  City. 

Judge  Inglis  was  never  married.  His  only  surviving  relative 
was  a  sister.  Miss  Margaret  Inglis,  who  is  still  (1896)  living  in  the 
City  of  New  York. 


244 


FINAL  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  COURT  OF 
COMMON  PLEAS. 

A   TRIBUTE   TO     THE    COMMON    PLEAS. 

Extract  from  the  New  York  Tribune  {editorial),  Dec.  ^7,  i8gj. 

"The  ancient  Court  of  Common  Pleas  will  not  pass  out  of  exist- 
ence without  a  suitable  commemoration  of  its  past.  With  the 
close  of  the  year  the  Common  Pleas  and  the  Superior  Courts  will 
be  merged  in  the  Supreme  Court.  It  is  fitting  that  suitable  recog- 
nition of  the  honorable  and  distinguished  part  that  the  older  of 
these  Courts  has  played  in  the  jurisprudence  of  this  city  and  this 
community  should  be  given.  Arrangements  have  been  made 
with  this  object  in  view  for  a  meeting  in  the  General  Term  room 
of  the  Common  Pleas  Court  on  next  Monday  afternoon.  The 
idea  of  holding  such  a  meeting  originated  among  members  of  the 
bar,  and,  of  course,  lawyers  will  be  the  chief  participants  in  the 
celebration.  But  the  event  itself  and  the  judicial  history,  the 
memory  of  which  it  is  intended  to  revive  and  perpetuate,  are  of 
great  interest  to  all  the  people  of  the  city. 

"  It  is  natural  that  Chief  Judge  Daly*  should  be  the  central  figure 
of  the  occasion.  For  twenty-five  years  successively  he  has  sat 
upon  the  bench,  and  for  the  last  five  as  the  Chief  Judge  of  the 
Court.  Not  only  has  he  won  the  respect  of  lawyers  and  laymen 
by  his  industrious  devotion  to  his  duties,  the  high  order  of  his 
judicial  work  and  his  unswerving  integrity,  but  it  might  be  said 
without  exaggeration  that  a  large  part  of  the  bar  of  the  city  enter- 
tains for  him  a  kind  of  personal  regard  that  is  as  unusual  as  it  is 
creditable  to  the  object  of  it.  At  the  meeting  to  be  held  on  Mon- 
day this  feeling  is  likely  to  find  expression  in  a  variety  of  ways, 
not  least  interesting  of  which  will  be  the  presentation  to  the  Chief 
Judge  of  the  ivory  gavel  last  used  by  him  in  Court,  elaborately 
mounted  in  gold  and  appropriately  inscribed. 

"  The  exercises  will  also  illustrate  the  close  connection  between 
this  Court  and  the  other  local  Courts.  The  Common  Pleas  has 
exercised  certain  jurisdiction  and  functions  in  probate  cases  in 
common  with  the  Surrogate's  Court.       It  has  been  the  appeal 

*Hon.  Joseph  F.  Daly. 

245 


Court  for  the  civil  District  Courts  and^the  City  Courts.  Its  Judges 
have  been  ex-ojfficio  members  of  the  General  Sessions.  Judicial 
representatives  of  all  these  tribunals  will  be  heard  at  the  meeting. 
Sons  of  its  deceased  Judges  will  be  among  the  officers,  and  emi- 
nent lawyers  will  speak  for  the  bar  itself.  The  consolidation  of 
the  Courts  under  the  new  Constitution  and  the  resulting  abolition 
of  the  Common  Pleas  are  generally  recognized  as  necessary 
judicial  reforms.  But  this  meeting  and  its  exercises  will  furnish 
the  strongest  evidence  of  the  high  place  which  the  Common  Pleas 
Court  and  its  Judges  deserve  to  hold  in  popular  esteem  for  the 
part  they  have  played  in  the  development  and  advancement  of 
this  community." 


246 


INDEX. 


Abbott,  Austin,  io6,  230. 

Alexander,  James  W.,  95. 

Allen,    Henry   Wilder,    25,    26, 
121-122,  130,   157,  158. 

Allen,  William  M.,  91. 

Anderson,  Henry  H,,  159. 

Andrews,  Rufus  F.,  160. 

Anthon,  John,  23,  24,  168. 

Appelate  Powers  of  the  Com- 
mon Pleas,  32,  33. 

Arbitrators,  12,  13,  14. 

Arnold,  John  H.  V.,  212-215. 

Arnoux,  William  H.,  160. 

Arthur,  Chester  A.,  80,  159,  160- 
161,  178. 

Assembly,  N.  Y.,  65,  131. 

Atkyn,  Sir  Robert,  i8i. 

Aula  Regis,  191,  192. 

Bangs,  C.  W.,  159. 

Banker,  Edward,  91. 

Bar  Association,  107,  112,  125 

Barker,  Smith,  132. 

Barlow,  Francis  C,  08 

Barney,  Hiram,  31. 

Barrett,    George  C,  25,  97-98, 
loi,   138,   139,  160,  225. 

Barrett,  William  C,  32. 

Baxter,  Richard,  161. 

Beach,  Miles,  25,  1 19-120,  157. 

Beach,    William   A.,   119,    139, 
182. 

Beaman,  Charles  C,  80,  159. 

Bell,  Joseph,  91. 

Bellamont,  Lord,  197. 

Benedict,  E.  C,  30. 

Betts,  William,  29. 

Bidwell,  Marshall  S.,  203. 

Binney,  Horace,  180. 


Birdseye,  Lucien,    139,  145-152. 

157,  183. 
Bischoff,    Henry,    25,    59,    107, 

125-126,  226. 
Blatchford,  Samuel,    122,    139, 

182. 
Bloodgood,  John  M.,  37. 
Blunt,  N.  Bowditch,  30. 
Boese,  Thomas,  80. 
Bogardus,  Robert,  24,  134. 
Bonney,  Benj.  W.,  30. 
Bookstaver,  Henry   W.,  25,  59, 

123-124,  160. 
Booth,  Edwin,  107. 
Bosworth,  Jos.  S.,  31,  84,  132. 
Bouck,  Gov.,  78. 
Bowne,  Walter,  36. 
Boyd,  Wm   W.,  65. 
Bracton,  Henry  de,  72. 
Bradford,  Alexander  W.,  109. 
Brady  James  T..  30,  31,  41,  51, 

77,  87,  119,  202. 
Brady,  John  R.,  25,  30,   31,  34, 

83,    87-89,    103,  132,  138,  139, 

160 
Brady,  Thomas,  30,  87. 
Brady,  Thomas  A.,  31. 
Brainard,  Cephas,  159. 
Bramwell,  Sir  Horace,  181. 
Brewster,  Henry,  133. 
Bright,  Osbom  E.,  159. 
Brown  University,  121. 
BuUer,  Francis,  151. 
Burgomasters,  9,  12,  194. 

' '  Board  of,  1 1 

Burke,  Edmund,  181. 
Burr,  Aaron,  22. 
Burrill,  John  E.,  32,  159. 


247 


Butler,  Benj.  F.,  31,  203,  209. 
Butler,  Charles  E.,  31. 
Butler,  William   Allen.   31,  80, 

159,    165-172,     200-204,    208, 

209,  222. 
Butler,  William  Allen,  Jr.,  31. 
Byrne,  Frank,  133. 
Cadwallader,  John  L.,  80,  159. 
Cady,  Daniel,   146. 
Cagger,  Peter,  147,  14S. 
Campbell,  Douglass,  91,  139. 
Campbell,  Samuel,  141. 
Campbell,  William  W. ,  91. 
Cardozo,  Albert,  25,  94,  138. 
Central  Park,  66. 
Carter,  James  C,  80,  159,  229. 
Chancery  Lane,  186. 
Chase,  Nelson,  31. 
Chase,  Salmon  P.,  122. 
Chemical  Bank,  105. 
Choate,  Joseph  H.,  80,  159. 
Choate,    William   G.,   139,  159, 

182. 
Clarke,  John  P.,  186. 
Clark,  Horace  F.,  31. 
Clarke,  Aaron,  37. 
Clarke,  T.  W.,  30. 
Cleveland,    Grover,     122,     126, 

120. 
Clinton,  Charles  A. ,  30. 
Clinton,    De  Witt,  23,  65,  134, 

138,  198. 
Clinton,  Henry  L.,  160. 
Coke,  Sir  Edward,  192,  193,  201. 
Colden,    Cadwallader,    19,    20, 

22,  134,  138,  198. 
Colden,  Cadwallader  D.,  23. 
Columbia  College,  61,  68,  70,  75, 

81,  86,  97.  125. 
Common  Council  of  N.  Y.,  41. 
Conciliation,  A  Court  of,  13,  14. 
Cooper,  Peter,  132. 
Coudert,  F.  R.,  80,  159. 
Court,  City,  33. 
Courts,  District,  33,  100. 
Court,  Mayor's  16,  22,  23,  195. 
Court  Messenger,  14,  15. 
Court  of  Appeals,  32,  10 1. 


Courts  of   Chancery,  17,  18,  20, 

186,  203. 
Court  of  Errors,  203. 
Court  of  Schout,  Burgomaster 

and  Schepens,  9,  12,  194. 
Court  of  Sessions,  16. 
Courts,  Patroon,  11. 
Court,  Superior,  25,  32,  33,  66, 

69,  80,  95,  109,  205. 
Court,  Supreme,  16,   19,  21,  22, 

24,  29,  31,  32,  33,   34,   68,   69, 

89,  94,  97,  98,   103,    104,    109, 

114,  120,  129. 

Court,  U.  S.  Supreme,  22. 
Court,  Surrogate's,  33. 
Cowdrey,  David  M.,  36,  37. 
Cowing,  Rufus  B.,  215-219. 
Cumming,  James  R.,  186. 
Curtis,  William  E.,  139. 
Cutting,  F.  Brockholst,   30,   36, 

37.    38,   39'    135,    138  .202, 
Cram,  Henry  A.,  32. 
Da  Costa,  Charles  M.,  159. 
Daly,  Augustin,  106. 
Daly,    Charles    P.,  13,    25,  26, 

28,  31,  34,  35,    49.    52,  54,  57, 

58,  59.   63,    74,   77-82,  83,   88, 

115,  133,  138,  139.  155-157, 
158,  159,  160,  161,  164,  166, 
167,  168,  169,  170,  172,  173, 
174,  175-178,  178,  179.  180- 
182,  183,  185,  189,  190-200, 
203,  204,  206,  207,  209,  218, 
222,  228,  234,  237. 

Daly,    Joseph     F.,  25,   26,    57, 

59,  105-108,  113,  126,  132, 
157,  182-184,  186,  220,  226, 
227-234,  236,  237. 

Dartmouth  College,  121. 
Davenport,  James  P.,  185. 
Davies,  Henry  E.,  30,  132. 
Davies,  Julian  T.,  30. 
Davies,  William  G.,  30. 
Davis,  Noah,  139,  230. 
Depew,  Chauncey  M.,  129. 
Devlin,  John  E.,  32. 
De  Witt,  C.  J.,  31. 
De  Witt,  Edward,  31. 


248 


Dilatory  Exceptions,  14. 
Dillon,  Robert  J.,  30. 
Dittenhoefer,  A.  J.,  160. 
Divine,  M.  W.,  157. 
Divver,  Patrick,  59,  60. 
Dix,  John  A.,  30. 
Dongan  Charter,  16,  23,  217. 
Dongan,  Governor,  ig6. 
Drinker,    Wm.    W.,   50,  51,  53, 

54,  55,  56,  57. 
Duane,  James,  20,  21,  22. 
Duelling  Oath,  29 
Duer,  Wm.  A.,  84. 
Duffy,  Patrick,  57,  58. 
Dunmore,  Lord,  19,  20,  22. 
Dutch  Law,  9,  15. 
Edelsten,  Wm.,  133. 
Edwards,  Charles,  30. 
Edwards,  Henry  P.,  30. 
Edwards,  John  W.,  31. 
Edwards,  Ogden,  65. 
Elevated  Railroad   Cases,    33, 

128. 
Emmett,  Thos.  Addis,   24,  34, 

138. 
Erasmus,  175. 

Evarts,  William  M.,  128,  132. 
Fairfield,  Sumner  Lincoln,  98. 
Fancher,  Enoch  L.,  31. 
Fav,  Joseph  D.,  24 
Fellows,  John  R.,  [ 
Fenton,  Reuben  E.,  95. 
Field,    David    Dudley,    30,  80, 

139,  159,  161-164,  182. 
Field,  William  Hildreth,  185. 
Fish,  Hamilton,  30. 
Fithian,  Judge,  132. 
Floyd-Jones,  David  R.,  109. 
Forfeited  Recognizances  in  the 

Common  Pleas,  32. 
Fox,  Austen  G.,  159,  185. 
Freedman,  J.  J.,  132,  139. 
Furlong,  Jesse  K.,  133. 
Gedney,  Frederick  G.,  160. 
Geographical    Society,    Ameri- 
can, 69,  81,  118,  124. 
Gerard,  James  W.,  Jr.,  32,  132, 

133-134,  168,  202. 


59- 


Giegerich,  Leonard  A.,  25,  59, 

130-131 
Gilbert,  Justice,^  47,  48,  49 
Goodman,  Richard,  83. 
Goodwin,  Almon,  159. 
Gould,  Jay,  120. 
Governor's  Council,  10. 
Graham,  David,  24,  30,  48,  53, 

134. 
Graham,  James,  196,  197. 
Grant,  U.  S.,  84,  116. 
Greeley,  Horace,  78. 
Green,  Andrew  H.,  32. 
Griffin,  Francis,  30. 
Hale,  Matthew,  161. 
Hale,  William  H.,  59. 
Hall,  Rev.  John,  95. 
Hall,  Willis,  83. 
Hamilton,   Alexander,    22,    34, 

144 
Hamilton,  Philip,  30. 
Hammond,  Samuel  H.,  147. 
Hardy,  Gov.  Charles,  18. 
Harper,  James,  52. 
Harrison,  Richard,  23. 
Haskell,  Joseph,  50,  51,  52,  53. 
Hill,  David  B.,  128,  130. 
Hill,  Nicholas,  146. 
Hilton,  Henry,  25,  32,    35,   90- 

93,  138,  160,  185. 
Hinsdale,  E.  B.,  159. 
Historical  Society,   New  York, 

69,  118,  124. 
Hoffman,    John    T.,    loi,    103, 

160,  217. 
Hoffman,  Josiah  Ogden,  22,  23, 

134,  198,  203 
Hoffman,  Murray,  84. 
Hoffman,  Ogden,  22,  36,  51, 
Hoffman,  Ogden,  Jr.,  32. 
Holden,  Horace,  41. 
Holt,  George  C,  159. 
Hopkins,  Samuel  M.,  24. 
Hoppin,  William  J.,  31. 
Horn,  William  T.,  31. 
Hornblower,    William  B.,   204- 

208. 
Hull,  Amos  G.,  133 


249 


Huntington,  Daniel,  82. 
Inglis,  William,  24,  25,   30,  38, 

42,   50,    70-76,    79.    138,    199. 

234,  244. 
Inglis,  John,  70 
Ingersoll,  William  H.,  133. 
Ingraham,  Daniel  P.,  24,  25,  30, 

34,   37,   38,  39,  41.  42,   49.   50, 

52,   68-69,    79,     83,     104,    138, 

179,   199,   202,  206,  234,  237. 
Ingraham,  George  L.,    24,   69, 

104. 
Insolvent,  Assignments  before 

the  Common  Pleas,  32. 
Irving  Cortlandt,  62. 
Irving  George,  62,  186. 
Irving,  John  T.,  23,  24,  34,  36, 

61-63,    65,  134,  135,   138,   186, 

198,    199,   234,  237. 
Irving,  John  T.,  Jr.,  31,  62. 
Irving,  Pierre  M.,  30. 
Irving,  William,  61. 
Irving,    Washington,   62,     134, 

135,  198. 
[ackson,  Andrew,  71 
lackson,  Charles  H  ,  46. 
[acob,  Ephraim  A.,  81. 
larvis,  Benj.  H.,  34. 
[arvis,  Nathaniel,  Jr.,  34,    80, 

178. 
[ay,  John,  31,  138. 
lay,  Peter  A.,  23,  24,  198. 
[ones,  Samuel,  23,  34,  133. 
[ones,  Judge,  132,  198. 
fudge,  Arthur,  91. 
"leily,  Anthony  M.,  160. 
Keily,  William  S.,  235. 
Kent,  James,  23,  65,  198,  204. 
Kent,  William,  30. 
Kerr,  John,  no. 
King,  ElishaW.,  24,  134. 
King's  Bench,  151. 
Kurzman,  Ferd.,  185. 
Lamb,  Martha,  196,  197 
Lansing,  Robert  R.,  30. 
Larremore,  Richard  L.,  25,  26, 

28,   57,  106,  112-115,  132,  157, 

173-174,  186,  237. 


Lanfemore,  Wilbur,  186. 
Lauterbach,    Edward,  208-212 

224. 
Law,  Common,  13. 
Law,  George,  no,  142. 
Law,  James  T,,  139. 
Law,  Stephen  D.,  139,  182. 
Law  Institute,  66. 
Lawrence,  A.  R.,  139. 
Law}^ers'  Club,  31. 
Leonard,  William  H.,  31. 
Leveridge,  John,  24,  134. 
Leveridge,  John  W.  C,  31. 
Lev}'-,  Abraham,  59. 
Lewis,  Morgan,  22. 
Livingston,    Edward,    22,    23, 

138,  198. 
Li\dngston,  Maturin,  23,  134. 
Loew,    Frederick  W.,    25,    99- 

102,  160,  225. 
Loomis,  Frank,  160. 
Lord,  Daniel,  16S,  203. 
Lott,  John  A. ,  30. 
Lovelace,  Lord,  194. 
Lower>%  Grosvenor,  159. 
Limacy    Proceedings     in     the 

Common  Pleas,  32,  57. 
Lynch,  Judge,  42. 
McAdam,  David,  107,  126,  226. 
McCloskey,  Cardinal,  77,  87 
McClure,    Dax-id,    185,   186-190, 

200,  204,   227. 
McElrath,  Thomas,  78. 
McGown,  Henry  P.,  32. 
McKeon,  John,  30,  55,  56. 
McMahon,  Dennis,  133. 
Mann,  Albon  P.,  30. 
Mann,  Charles  A.,  144. 
Mansfield,  Lord,  151,  167,   176, 

181. 
Marbury,  F.  F.,  159. 
Marcy,  Gov.,  74,  175. 
Marshall,  John,  180. 
Marsh,  Luther  R.,  31,  132,  135- 

138,139,  141-145,  157,  159.183 
Martin,  Isaac  P.,  159. 
Marvin,  D.,  133. 
Matzel,  George  W.,  43,  45. 


250 


Maxwell,  Hugh,  24, 

Mechanic    Lien    Cases   in    the 
Common  Pleas,  32. 

Merritt,  Henry  W.,  37,  38. 

Mickle,  Andrew  H.,  56. 

Minuit,  Gov.  Peter,  10. 

Mitchell,  William  Minot,  31. 

Mitchell,  Judge,  132. 

Monell,  Claudius  L.,  31. 

Montgomerie,  Gov.  John,  18. 

Moore,  Gov.  Henry,  19. 

Morrill,  John  A.,  37. 

Morris,  Fordham,  159. 

Morris,  Robert  H.,  30,  37. 

Mott,  John  O.,  160. 

Morrison,  Henry,  32,  133. 

MulHgan,  John  T.,  24. 

Murphy,  Henry  C,  31. 

Names  Changed  by  the  Com- 
mon Pleas,  33. 

Naturalization  by  the  Common 
Pleas,  32. 

Nelson,  Samuel,  78,  167. 

New  Amsterdam,  11,  12,  13. 

New  York  University,  103,  116. 

Nicholl,  Henry,  132. 

Nicholls,  Gov.,  194,  195,  196. 

Nicholls,  Matthias,  194. 

Noyes,  William  C,  31,  105. 

Oakley,  Judge,  84. 

O'Conor,  Charles,  36,  37,  38, 
39.  57,  73,  80,  110,  119,  132, 
139,  168,  182,  202. 

Ogden,  Abraham,  Jr.,  29. 

Ogden,  David  B.,  24. 

O' Gorman,  James  G.,  221. 

O' Gorman,  Richard,  80,  172. 

Olney,  Peter  B.,  160. 

Parker,  Miln,  40,  43,  45. 

Parsons,  John  E.,  180. 

Paterson,  Edward,  159. 

Patterson,  Matthew  C.,  43,  44, 
45,  50,  51,  124. 

Peabody,  Charles  A.,  31,  159. 

Peckham,  George  W.,  147. 

Peckham,  Ruf us  W. ,  147. 

Peckham,  Wheeler  H.,  58,  98. 

Phelps,  B.  H.,  58. 


Phillips,  Jonas,  B.,  56. 
Phoenix,  Thomas,  24,  37. 
Pierce,  Franklin,  127. 
Pierrepont,  Edwards,    84,    132, 

160, 
Porter,  John  K.,  84,  139,  182. 
Price,  Charles,  32. 
Price,  William  M.,  24. 
Provoost,  John  B.,  23. 
Pryor,  Roger  A.,    25,    59,    127- 

129,  226. 
Radcliffe,  Jacob,  23,  138,  198. 
RadclifiEe,  Peter  W. ,  24. 
Ransom,  Rastus  B.,  160. 
Rapallo.  Charles   A.,    32,    no, 

119. 
Redfield,  Amasa  A.,  160. 
Report  of  the  Common  Pleas, 

35,  63,  66. 
Reynolds,  Marcus  T. ,  146. 
Riker,  Henry  L.,  31, 
Riker,  John,  31. 

Riker,  Richard,  23,  36,  134,  217. 
Richardson,  Sir  Thomas,  181. 
Rives,  George  L.,  185, 
Robinson,  E.  R.,  159, 
Robinson,  Hamilton  W.,25,  26, 

34,    57,    106,     108,      109-111, 

113, 132, 139-157, 181,  182,  183, 

186. 
Robinson,  Henry  A.,  in,  186. 
Robinson,  Lucius,  120. 
Roesch,  George  F.,  223-227. 
Rollins,  Daniel  G,,  59. 
Roosevelt,  R.  B.,  105. 
Roosevelt,  S.  W.,  105 
Root,  Elihu,  80,  120,  150. 
Ruggles,  Philo  T.,  30. 
Runk,  Charles  A.,  186. 
Russell,  Abraham  D.,  30,  40. 
Russell,  Horace,  93. 
Rutgers  College,  112,  123. 
St.  Nicholas  Society,  104,    118, 

124. 
Sampson,  William,  24. 
Sanford,  Charles  F.,  84,  139. 
Sandford,  Edward,  30,  41. 
Sandford,  Lewis  H.,  31. 


251 


Savings  of  Merchants'  Clerks, 

Institute  for,  31,  34 
Schell,  Augustus,  31, 
Schepens,  9,  12,  15,  194,  195. 
Schout,  9,  10,  12,  15,  194,  195. 
Scott,  John  B.,  56. 
Scribner,  John  M.,  no,  133,  139, 

159,  182,  185. 
Sedgwick,  John,  139. 
Sedgwick,  Theodore,  31. 
Senate,  N.Y.,  65. 
Seward,    Clarence  A.,    80,  133, 

159- 
Sewell,  Robert,  160. 
Shepard,  Lorenzo  B.,  56. 
Sherwood,  John,  160. 
Shipman,  William  D.,  159. 
Silliman,  Benj.  D.,  30. 
Slosson,  William,  24,  84,  132. 
Smith,  Historian,  20. 
Smith,  Augustus   F.,    132,   134- 

135.  202. 
Smith,  Duncan,  159. 
Smith,  E.  Delafield,  34,  63,  66, 

206,  209. 
Smith,  Floyd,  44. 
Smith,  James  M.,  Jr.,  31. 
Smith,  Thomas  J.,  74. 
Smith,  T.  W.,64. 
Smythe,  Frederick,  120,  133,  217. 
Soule,  William,  78. 
Speir,  Gilbert  M.,  31,  139,  141. 
Sprague,  Edward  E.,  159. 
States  General,  The,  11. 
Sterling,  John  W. ,  80,  1 59. 
Stetson,  Francis  Lynde,  159. 
Steuben,  Baron,  144. 
Stevens,  Cyrus  S. ,  147. 
Stevens,  Ephraim,  43,  45. 
Stevens,  Samuel,  146. 
Stewart,  Alexander  T.,  91,  92. 
Stone,  Charles  Francis,  159. 
Story,  Joseph,  79,  167. 
Stoughton,  Edward  W.,  31. 
Strong,  Theron  G.,  159. 
Stu3rvesant,  Gov.  Peter,  11,  194. 
Sullivan,  Algernon  S  ,  58,  133, 

159,  160. 


Sweeny,  Thomas,  234. 
Tabor,  Azor,  147. 
Talmadge,  Daniel  B,,  30. 
Talman,  George  F.,  37. 
Tammany  Society,  66,  94. 
Tappen,  Abraham  B.,  32. 
Taylor,  Douglas,  160. 
Thompson,  Hubert  O,,  122. 
Thomson,  James  J.,  139. 
Tilden,  Samuel  J.,  32,  loi. 
Townsend,  John  J.,  32. 
Tracy,  Charles,  157. 
Tweed,  William  M.,  79,  94,  98, 

113,  176. 
Ulshoeffer,  Michael,  24,  25,  34, 

37,  38,  46,  49.  52,   54,   64-67, 

83,   138,    179,    198,    202,   234, 

237- 
Union  College,  95,  96,  109,  119. 
University  of  Virginia,  127, 129. 
Van  Brunt,  Arthur  H.,  104. 
Van  Brunt,  Charles  H.,  25,  57, 

103-104,    106,    113,    157,  160, 

185. 
Van  Buren,  John   J.,    142,  145, 

146.  148,  149. 
Van  Cott,  D.  M.,  41. 
Van  Cott,  George  M.,  40. 
Vanderpoel,  A.  J.,  133. 
Vanderpoel,    Jacob,    102,    139, 

140,  157,  159,  183. 
Van  Hoesen,  George  M,,25,  57, 

112,    116-118,  183,    185,    186, 

234. 
Van  Schaick,  Stephen  D.,  147, 

148. 
Van  Vechten,  Teunis,  146. 
Van  Vorst,   Hooper  C.,  25,  95- 

96,  132,  138,  139,  152-155,  157, 

160,  183. 
Van  Winkle,  Edgar  S.,  30. 
Van    Wyck,    Pierre  C,    23,  24, 

134- 
Van  Wyck,  Robert  A.,  219-221. 

Varick,  Richard,  23,  144. 
Verplanck,  Gulian  C.,  75,  81. 
Verplanck,  Samuel,  29,  204. 
WagstafE,  Alfred,  34,  235. 


252 


Wakeman,  Abram,  i6o. 
Warner,  Andrew,  31,  34. 
Walworth,  Reuben  H.,  204. 
Washington,  George,  22, 
Waterbury,  Nelson,  J.,  31,  121, 

132. 
Waterman,  Thomas  W.,  74. 
Wells,  Thomas  L.,  29. 
West,  Surrogate,  214. 
West  India  Company,  9,  10. 
Wheaton,  Eber,  36. 
Whitehead,  Aaron  P.,  159. 
Whiting,  James  R.,  37,  38,  40, 

46,  47,  48,  50,  56. 
Wiley,  William,  41. 
Wilkins,  Martin  S.,  24,  134. 


Will  Contests  with  Jury,  32. 
William  the  Conqueror,  191. 
Willet,  Marinus,  23,  133,  138. 
Willet,  Thomas,  196. 
Wilson,  Peter,  30. 
Wood,  George,  51,  83. 
Wood,  Isaac  W. ,  40. 
Woodruff,  Charles  H.,  84, 
Woodruff,  Lewis  B.,   25,  83-86, 

138,  203,  206. 
Wright,  Deodatus,  147. 
Yale  College,  30. 
Yancey,  William  L.,  127. 
Young,  John  Russell,  129. 
Zabriskie,  George,  159. 


253 


